For the second part of this series, consider the uproar surrounding Dana Loesch’s NRA-produced video challenge to the New York Times, where she says this:
“We the people” have had it. We’ve had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news. We’ve had it with your constant protection of your democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life. And we’ve had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism.
Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow. We are going to fisk the The New York Times and find out just what “deep and rich” means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades. We’re going to laser-focus on your so-called “honest pursuit of truth.”
To criticize and refute (a published article or argument), especially in point-by-point or line-by-line fashion on a blog.
Many who are unaware of the coinage inserted their own word into the breach (no pun intended): fist, a word which has had its own recent redefinition, a sexual one from another insular subculture–gay men.
So it was that this particular Cat 5 storm was set in motion, where people are aghast that someone would want to “fist” the New York Times. CNN’s Mark Herling has even dropped a dime on Loesch — presumably to the FBI –for “threatening Americans and institutions.” I’ll leave off from any jokes about rebuttals.
As an effective spokeswoman for gun rights and for the NRA, Loesch is a perennial target for those who would see those rights infringed and is adept at pushing back. But the most telling parts of this latest storm need to be spelled out.
That some online critics pretend that they’ve never heard of the verb “to fisk,”
That other online critics actually have never heard of it, and
That members of both sets of critics are quick to jump to sexual innuendo-type conclusions, projecting their own deviant mindset onto others, notably in this case, a heterosexual, married woman. All weapons are fair in the destruction of an enemy’s reputation — except guns, of course.
The most important factor, however, is that MSM entities like the New York Time are being called out by Loesch and by many others … our host, for example.
The MSM goal is to drown out that message in all the fisk/fist outrage and that goal has been reached.
Or has it?
Part Three’s topic: Googlegate. Maybe. By Saturday — my next day to post — it’s a safe bet that there will be a more current Social Media Hurricane.
Yesterday we discovered that while the NYT is all in favor of amnesty for those who enter places illegally they apparently draw the line if they are illegally present where they don’t want them.
New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof fought with and restrained an intruder he found in his Philadelphia hotel room.
In fact not content to eject the illegal occupier he turn said illegal resident into law enforcement.
A police spokesman confirmed the account, saying the columnist “chased him, struggled with him and held him until officers arrived.” The suspect is in custody awaiting charges.
This seems odd to me, Philadelphia is a Sanctuary City therefore if a person is illegally present somewhere the proper thing to do, particularly if you are a member of the NYT is, regardless of the law, to recognize said persons right to be where they are. Any other action is clearly racist.
Thus the police should have informed Mr. Kristof that no person is illegal and that his attempts to punish that person for being someplace illegally, rather than insisting he get amnesty for his crime, smacked of white privilege no matter what the law says.
That they did not leads one to suspect that the for members of the left, the tolerance for the ignoring of the law ends when their inconvenience or danger begins
If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar
Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.
If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.
And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.
OVER the past few weeks, cable news networks and other media sites have trumpeted wild fluctuations and surprising results in polling on the presumed general-election matchup between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton.
I’m sure this has nothing to do with two consecration polls showing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton at a time when such polling could persuade Democrat super delegates to reconsider giving the nomination Bernie Sanders instead who consistently out polls Trump.
After all the Times would’t do that to protect Hillary would they?
And Ann Althouse (not really a conservative) put the final nail in the coffin:
I know, you’re going to say, why are you surprised? It’s the New York Times. Why do you even read it? But put the usual reflexive retorts aside for a moment and take a look at how bad this example is. It’s a news report, not an opinion piece, and it assumes, over and over, that Pao is the victim of sexism (even though her downfall had to do with her involvement in the firing of another woman):
Of course this was possible because we were paying attention as this story developed in the first place. July 3rd:
The hugely popular link-sharing site is in a state of virtual lockdown after the volunteers who run some of the site’s biggest communities (known as “subreddits”) went on the digital equivalent of a general strike. This followed the sacking of Victoria Taylor, a popular site admin, after a Reddit Q&A with the Rev. Jesse Jackson went badly for the activist preacher.
High-traffic subreddits dedicated to movies, gaming, videos, history, science and art have been voluntarily locked by their moderators as an act of protest against the decision, which they saw as a symptom of an increasingly overbearing management that takes its users and volunteer moderators for granted.
End result? Informed bloggers destroy the NYT attempt to spin the events at Reddit. They’re exposed to anyone willing to read the facts.
The NYT also tried to spin another event, the Pope’s visit to south America. They start with a Headline that’s a doozy:
In Fiery Speeches, Francis Excoriates Global Capitalism
Note the word “fiery” boy he must be really hitting capitalism HARD. Then look at the text inside
His speeches can blend biblical fury with apocalyptic doom. Pope Francis does not just criticize the excesses of global capitalism. He compares them to the “dung of the devil.” He does not simply argue that systemic “greed for money” is a bad thing. He calls it a “subtle dictatorship” that “condemns and enslaves men and women.”
Ooh that’s a big first paragraph Francis must really be saying something strong here, maybe in the rest we’ll hear the words of the Pope to see what he is saying.
Ah but it ‘s the new york times, so instead of the Pope words in context in the next 23 paragraphs we get a lot of quotes from left wing theologians on the Pope and stuff like this:
The French economist Thomas Piketty argued last year in a surprising best-seller, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century,” that rising wealth inequality is a natural result of free-market policies, a direct challenge to the conventional view that economic inequalities shrink over time. The controversial implication drawn by Mr. Piketty is that governments should raise taxes on the wealthy.
Huh? What is That doing in a News story about the Pope?
Fortunately as I noted last week there is a page at the Vatican that has the Pope’s actual speeches from his trip sermons available online so I decided to find this spot where the Pope is talking about Capitalism as the “dung of the devil” and what do you know? It turns out it’s not quite the type of thing the Times makes it out to be: (all emphasis mine)
And behind all this pain, death and destruction there is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea – one of the first theologians of the Church – called “the dung of the devil”. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. This is the “dung of the devil”. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home, sister and mother earth.
Now greed and lust for money as evil is one of the basic teachings of the church since the time of Christ and every single Pope of the last 50 years has discussed it. Francis goes on:
Secondly, you are sowers of change. Here in Bolivia I have heard a phrase which I like: “process of change”. Change seen not as something which will one day result from any one political decision or change in social structure. We know from painful experience that changes of structure which are not accompanied by a sincere conversion of mind and heart sooner or later end up in bureaucratization, corruption and failure. There must be a change of heart. That is why I like the image of a “process”, processes, where the drive to sow, to water seeds which others will see sprout, replaces the ambition to occupy every available position of power and to see immediate results. The option is to bring about processes and not to occupy positions. Each of us is just one part of a complex and differentiated whole, interacting in time: peoples who struggle to find meaning, a destiny, and to live with dignity, to “live well”, and in that sense, worthily.
What? Did I just hear Francis warn about bureaucratization and corruption It can’t be. The NYT didn’t say a word about it!
As members of popular movements, you carry out your work inspired by fraternal love, which you show in opposing social injustice. When we look into the eyes of the suffering, when we see the faces of the endangered campesino, the poor laborer, the downtrodden native, the homeless family, the persecuted migrant, the unemployed young person, the exploited child, the mother who lost her child in a shootout because the barrio was occupied by drugdealers, the father who lost his daughter to enslavement…. when we think of all those names and faces, our hearts break because of so much sorrow and pain. And we are deeply moved, all of us…. We are moved because “we have seen and heard” not a cold statistic but the pain of a suffering humanity, our own pain, our own flesh. This is something quite different than abstract theorizing or eloquent indignation. It moves us; it makes us attentive to others in an effort to move forward together. That emotion which turns into community action is not something which can be understood by reason alone: it has a surplus of meaning which only peoples understand, and it gives a special feel to genuine popular movements.
What are we hearing about the Pope talking about violence of Drug dealers and human traffickers? This could be a speech given in Detroit?
And as he is wont to do the Pope talks about the persecution of Christians:
The Church, her sons and daughters, are part of the identity of the peoples of Latin America. An identity which here, as in other countries, some powers are committed to erasing, at times because our faith is revolutionary, because our faith challenges the tyranny of mammon. Today we are dismayed to see how in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world many of our brothers and sisters are persecuted, tortured and killed for their faith in Jesus. This too needs to be denounced: in this third world war, waged peacemeal, which we are now experiencing, a form of genocide – I insist on the word – is taking place, and it must end.
Funny the times piece didn’t have that bit in it did they?
In every sector of society, but above all in public service, there is a need to reaffirm that dialogue is the best means of promoting the common good, on the basis of a culture of encounter, respect and acknowledgment of the legitimate differences and opinions of others. In the effort to overcome a spirit of constant conflict, unity is always better than conflict; convictions born of ideology or partisan interest should blend advantageously with love of the country and its people. That love must be the incentive to increased administrative transparency and unceasing efforts to combat corruption. I know that today there exists a firm desire to root out corruption.
Dear friends, in the desire to serve and promote the common good, the poor and needy have to be given priority of place. Paraguay has done much to advance along the path of economic growth. Important steps have been taken in the areas of education and health care. May all social groups work to ensure that there will never again be children without access to schooling, families without homes, workers without dignified employment, small farmers without land to cultivate, or campesinos forced to leave their lands for an uncertain future. May there be an end to violence, corruption and drug trafficking. An economic development which fails to take into account the weakest and underprivileged is not an authentic development. Economic progress must be measured by the integral dignity of persons, especially the most vulnerable and helpless.
Again the Pope talks about transparency and corruption in Government it’s something he keeps going back to:
I offer a word of encouragement to all who work at this center: to the administrators, the police officials and all the personnel. You carry out a vital public service. You have an important responsibility for facilitating the process of reintegration. It is your responsibility to raise up, not to put down, to restore dignity and not to humiliate; to encourage and not to inflict hardship. This means putting aside a mentality which sees people as “good” or “bad”, and instead trying to focus on helping others. And the mindset of wanting to help each person will also save you from every form of corruption and will improve conditions for everyone. In so doing, it will give us dignity, motivate us, and make us all better people.
This is the logic of discipleship, it is what the Holy Spirit does with us and in us. We are witnesses of this. One day Jesus saw us on the side of the road, wallowing in our own pain and misery, our indifference. Each one knows his or her past. He did not close his ear to our cries. He stopped, drew near and asked what he could do for us. And thanks to many witnesses, who told us, “Take heart; get up”, gradually we experienced this merciful love, this transforming love, which enabled us to see the light. We are witnesses not of an ideology, of a recipe, of a particular theology. We are not witnesses of that. We are witnesses to the healing and merciful love of Jesus. We are witnesses of his working in the lives of our communities.
Funny the Pope talked about Jesus & Mary in every speech he gave but the words “Jesus” & “Mary” come up with 0 results in a search of that NYT piece.
Well that’s OK after all if we aren’t going to let the NYT spin us on Ellen Pao we’re certainly quite prepared to challenge the NYT spin of the Pope’s words here:
Red Francis Calls Capitalism “Dung of the Devil” …Here Is The Truth
Or perhaps not.
God, please save your Church from this ignorant lunatic. Red Francis blasted global capitalism in his speeches this week in Latin America.
This is Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit who normally would fact check the NYT if they told him the St. Louis Cardinals played in St. Louis
The Communist pope called capitalism the “dung of the devil.”
Seriously Jim? Not one link to the actual speeches of the Pope not one full paragraph of the Pope taken in context, not one even snarky line about the “Paper of Record” not noticing the Pope talking about the Saints, or Mary or even bothering to say the word “Jesus” once. Nope, the NYT has spoken so those are the facts. There is nothing more to be said.
And because nobody is bothering to check the Times not only do we get a bad piece based upon their spin but we get a comments section even worse.[sic]
its like there is strict reuired classes for high up politicians and religious figures. They all spout the same lines about gay communist muslim trance talk.
ok class this is gay communist muslim 101, and im sorry to say that only a quarter of you passed the “how unbelievable fruity can you get” questions, youre going to have to try to be gayer, i mean really stratosphere gay.
you all got the communists need to murder everyone questions, and islam ……well since we cant say “islam” anywhere even in print, you all passed. Just kill everything is pretty much the norm, oh and be gay.
francis however passed the im the gayest and fruityiest polesmoker questions with such swishy flair, im really impressed. Now if we can really place this pillowbiter really high up.
Good job gayest communist muslim francis., youre on your way to fame and fortune.
How many of these people would be up in arms if the Times tried to spin them this way on another issue.
So given this incongruity let me close with one loud expression of frustration:
Am I the only conservative left in the world who sees something seriously wrong here?
I swear stuff like this makes me need another week of PINTASTIC just to recover from it.
Yeah, the Clintons might have gotten all that foreign money and wiped their servers to hide their past but what is that next to 17 traffic tickets by the Rubios in 18 years?
I guess we’d better get him in the White House since it will mean they won’t be driving for themselves anymore.
Just remember this the next time people on the left say Clinton’s record is no big deal.
Oh and one more thing (emphasis mine)
According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.
I wonder does the NYT going after the Rubio’s over his wife’s traffic tickets constitute a war on women?
Update: It just hit me, isn’t the real story that the Rubio & his family, despite being a State Rep, Speaker of the Florida House, a US Senator and now a Presidential Candidate actually got cited for these ticketed and paid a penalty for it rather than having them fixed and go away?
The whole story is silly and insubstantial. If there was some indication that the Rubios used their political power to have traffic tickets vanish, that would be a story. Instead, the Rubios had to pay a lawyer to deal with the court issues, perhaps a bit of a luxury but noteworthy only for their legitimate use of legal options rather than political power to deal with the tickets.
Ben Shapiro asks whether the New York Times might have noticed any untoward activities from another political spouse:
If you prefer coverage of the Presidential candidates rather than questions covering their wife’s driving records please remember the only way I can do this type of journalism is if enough people choose to kick in to support me making a nominal living doing it.
My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand
That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta) If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done. Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.
But there is one piece of this entire exercise that constantly annoys me.
There has been ample evidence that the Clintons are corrupt, that they are is no surprise, nor is the concept that as Sec of State Clinton would use her high office for gain (If that wasn’t the case then the White House wouldn’t have asked her to sign the agreement she ignored.)
What annoys me is this, that part of the narrative is that these charges are credible not because of the evidence but because they are in the New York Times. The Charges are to be believed because they have been reported in the MSM.
This is an insult, outside of their elite base the MSM in general and the NYT in particular have the credibility of an infomercial, ignoring stories that do not reflect well on the product they are trying to sell (extreme liberalism) and alternately acting like the palace guard for Barack Obama or his attack dog.
They offer a money losing product that the public doesn’t want and the only reason why their have any reach at all is their primary customer base consists of other news organizations who use them as a primary source a source that has become increasinglyunreliable.
It isn’t the NYT that makes the Clinton Cash allegations credible. It the author making agreements with the times that provide them with an accurate and credible story for a change.
Every single one of us in conservative media should be making that point at every opportunity.
In stark contrast to the NYT readers of this blog are fully aware of our bias and are welcome to make judgements accordingly. Furthermore our readers know the money to pay for this blog comes from you:
If you want journalism owned by you instead of the left elites I would ask you to hit DaTipJar and help me pay for it.
My goal is Twenty grand a year
That gets all the bills paid. If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.
Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.
I wrote about the Boston Globe being saved from the clutches of those nasty conservatives a few days ago. Red Mass Group expands on why John Henry of the Boston Red Sox is the perfect buyer for the paper:
John Henry on the other hand is a long time Democratic donor and activist. According to his donation records Henry has donated over $1.1M to Democrats and special interest groups, while $1000 went to a lone Republican.
$101,500 special interest
Seemingly the New York Times Corporation may have not fulfilled it’s fiduciary responsibility to get the most money for an asset it was selling. Furthermore, it seems to be based on the politics of the bidders.
“We bid significantly more than Henry,” said John Lynch, the CEO of U-T San Diego, one of the Globe finalists. “At the end of the day, I’m certain our bid was higher and could have been a lot more higher if they had just asked. I’m just stunned. I thought this was a public company that had a fiduciary duty to get the most by its stockholders. … From the beginning, I don’t think they wanted to sell to us.”
Lynch said the Times laid out three qualifiers for the deal: price, capability to close quickly and ability to finance.
“We had the money in the bank, we had the highest price and we rolled over (Friday) and accepted all their terms,” said Lynch.
As recently as 3 p.m. EDT Friday, Lynch said, U-T San Diego had an army of lawyers working to iron out a deal with the Times, and didn’t officially learn it had lost until they received an email at 3:30 a.m. EDT — some two hours after the Globe announced the $70 million deal on Twitter.
Hey what’s elementary economics when there is a neighborhood to protect?
A final thought. The New York Times is the leading proponent of social and economic Liberalism in general and Barack Obama and his economic policies in particular.
If you wonder why democrats in congress and on the White House have been so willing to put their party before the actual economic good of the country then you simply don’t understand liberalism.
In Theory Amazon hasn’t purchased it but in terms of advertising he will basically be paying himself. If he integrates the business and we know Bezos is skilled at this, then again will conservative book buyers decide to spend their money elsewhere if Bezos becomes the liberal angel.
I must admit I have no idea how this will turn out but it’s interesting to note that both the Post and the Globe buyers are successful businessmen who have plenty of money to lose if they wish.
The question becomes are they businessman’s trying to expand to succeed in a new business or Angels who have plenty of money to lose in pushing a viewpoint?
That’s the $64,000 questions or should I say the $250 Million dollar question
So I decided to show the NYT how it’s done. I called Pamela today and received her permission to use her ad and got it I reproduce it here.
But even that isn’t much of an act of courage. You are talking a single post on a single day, who will see it? Who will comment on it? who will be outraged over it? Who will threaten my life over a single blog post?
So we are going to do something different.
By the time this post goes up you will see a new Page offered at the top of the blog. It is titled “Time to Quit Islam”. I intend to leave it up on my blog through the remainder of lent. Every day when people come to my site they will see the heading at the top of my page. And just for the fun of it, I’ll add a graphic in my ads section as well that links to the page.
And let the chips fall where they may.
Oh and btw, it’s Peter Ingemi of Fitchburg Massachusetts. the fat guy of Sicilian ancestry in the hat, just so there’s no confusion.
Considering the Keller hit piece in the NYT and the pressure the MSM will be putting on candidates and their supporters over overt Christianity I’m sure even the most protestant candidates in the race belonging to churches that have abandoned the Lectionary would approve of the timing of today’s scheduled reading at Sunday Mass. They fit the debate like a glove.(all emphasis mine):
You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped;
you were too strong for me, and you triumphed. All the day I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.
Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage is my message; the word of the LORD has brought me
derision and reproach all the day.
I say to myself, I will not mention him,
I will speak in his name no more. But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it. (Jeremiah 20:7-9)
I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God,
to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice,
holy and pleasing to God, your spiritual worship. Do not conform yourselves to this age
but be transformed by the renewal of your mind,
that you may discern what is the will of God,
what is good and pleasing and perfect. (Romans 12:1-2)
And Today’s Gospel
Jesus began to show his disciples
that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly
from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him,
“God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
He turned and said to Peter,
“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
Then Jesus said to his disciples,
“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life” Or what can one give in exchange for his life? For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father’s glory, and then he will repay all according to his conduct.” (Matthew 16:21-27)
You would be hard pressed to find a more fitting set of readings to punctuate this debate that continues on. The warnings and messages therein are important reminders to people ready to bend or break under the media onslaught.
Since Morning Joe and the left are screaming loudly how unpopular the GOP and tea party is in their latest poll the time has come once again to look at the actual internal numbers to see how they are spinning:
The number of republicans in this sample is a whole 24%
the number of “self identified” conservatives is 32%
And the president’s approval rating is 48% with 47% disapproval
Think about that number of people in this poll who disapprove of the president is nearly double the number of republicans polled (96& more)
The number of people who disapprove of the president is nearly half again more than the number of “conservatives” polled (47% more).
And let’s do one better, the left trumpets the unfavorable numbers of the Tea Party in this poll
But they skip over this interesting question concerning their influence:
In a poll where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1 , a poll with only 32% of self identified conservatives 41% of the people polled think the tea party have either the right amount of influence or two little, vs 43% who say it has too much. And that’s after a week of being told they are hostage takers and terrorists.
These numbers tell me the tea party is gaining credibility as a positive influence among the people. In a poll where only 18% of the respondents consider themselves tea party supporters vs 73% who did not they are having an influence over 125% greater than their actual numbers. Cripes by these numbers at least 20% of the people who don’t support the tea party think they have the right amount of influence or not enough.
This poll is a disaster all right, but not for the tea party, it’s a disaster for the democrats.