Gabby Giffords Shooting a Result of Democrat Propaganda Gone Awry?

This week the dirty Dems tried to resurrect their smear from 2011, that Sarah Palin's congressional map of "targeted" districts was a call for violence against Democrat candidates.  I debunked this big load of fertilizer at the time, with my post of January 10, 2011, Sarah Palin's "Cross-Hairs" Map:  Much Ado About Nothing.

The New York Times brought up this old manufactured controversy after a Democrat opened fire on Republican Congressmen last week, who were practicing baseball for a charity event.  Sarah Palin is considering suing the New York Times for libel.  This smear was vicious at the time, and hasn't improved with age.

What the Times didn't tell you is that the Democrats have used a similar map, not with cross-hairs, but actual bulls-eyes.  No one ever claimed that their map was a subtle encouragement for political assassination.  This, even though the Democrat map has the title "Targeting Strategy" and describes the Republican districts as "Behind Enemy Lines."  Sheer hypocrisy.  You can see that map at the link noted above.

I also posited that Gabby Giffords may have inadvertently targeted herself, by making the "cross-hairs" claim on local Arizona television.  The psycho who shot her, Jared Loughner, probably never saw Palin's map, which was on her website.  It is far more likely that he saw Gabby Giffords on local television claiming that Palin had targeted her for violence, and acted on that instead.  See my post of January 14, 2011 to that effect, Did Gabby Giffords Inadvertently Target Herself? (Video).

The lying, ruthless Democrats apparently never considered that their accusations might be acted upon by a maniac.

Must Read Article on the Bias of the New York Times

Over at the American Thinker, J. Paul Masko has penned an article exposing the prevalent bias of the New York Times, Living in the New York Times World.  The Times, long heralded as "the Paper of Record," from which many sources of news and commentary are derived, is utterly biased, dedicated to impressing upon the American mind the goals and principles of progressivism.

The Times does this by suppressing news that is negative to Democrat goals and policies, by placing other news in the far pages of the paper where it will be overlooked by many readers, and by applying a leftward spin to stories on its front page.

The Times is actually a propaganda sheet.  Read it and be informed.

New York Times Op-Ed Raises Some Interesting Possibilities for Conservatives

Some forward thinker at the New York Times has written an op-ed column stating that it is time to get rid of the U.S. Constitution.  Then and only then can progressives carry out plans to turn the once greatest nation in the world into a banana republic and socialist tyranny.

The great thinker in question, one Louis Michael Seidman, writes:

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Hey, Seditious Seidman may have a point.  How many times have you wanted to firebomb the presses of the New York Times?  Unfortunately, there's this pesky First Amendment that makes it illegal.  With no more Constitution, we can exercise lawless, mob action to do what is undoubtedly correct:  shutting up the traitors among us.

Some other possibilities:

1. Making it illegal for anyone to be a leftist.
2. Outlawing the Democrat Party.
3. Outlawing labor unions.
4. Licensing all print and broadcast media and enforcing a code of conduct, i.e., to promote, support and celebrate capitalism, traditional marriage, free markets, laissez-faire economics, and to oppose, denigrate and ridicule socialism, collectivism, and smelly hippies.  Those who fail to support the code of conduct will have their licenses to publish canceled and subject to arrest and summary execution.
5. Mass firing of all college professors who are leftists, communists, Marxists, progressives or Democrats (I realize that those categories widely overlap).  Michael Savage will be appointed education czar and will have the responsibility of hiring all university professors.
6. Mass deportation of all Muslims and illegal immigrants.
7. Outlawing rap music.
8. Outlawing facial studs and tattoos.
9. Legally recognizing abortion as murder and practitioners thereof subject to summary execution.

There's a point to my madness.  The Constitution even protects the unworthy, like Seidman and the publishers of the New York Times.

And now a warning to "progressives" everywhere:  We will fight in the streets, if necessary, to preserve the Constitution.  We do not accept the seditious transformation of our country into a socialist tyranny.  Do not underestimate us.

New York Times Highly Annoyed as GOP Takes Control of the House

Per Pirate's Cove, the new GOP politicians have barely taken their seats in Congress, but already the New York Times is foaming with sarcasm, derision and bombast.  Ahhh, it's great to see the New York Times editors all annoyed, angered and chagrined.  Enjoy it, libbies.  I hope your stomach acid eats big ugly holes in your stomach lining.

Read about it here.

The False Analogy of the New York Times: Tea Party Members vs Weather Underground

American Power has a post regarding a recent article by the New York Times.  The article compares the violent, anti-American, pro-Communist Weather Underground of the 1960's with the Tea Party goers of 2010.

There is no comparison and the Times knows it, but this is not news reporting, it is leftwing propaganda.  It is part of the ongoing effort of the so-called mainstream news to discredit and defame the Tea Party movement.

The Tea Parties are trying to save America, not destroy it or subvert it to some foreign, totalitarian ideology, as did the Weather Underground.  Further, the Tea Parties have shown ZERO tendencies towards violence in their numerous assemblies and protests.  They have threatened no one.  They have slandered no one -- not minorities or gays.  Their only threat, if it can be called one, is to vote the Democrats out in mass, come November.

The Times story is disgusting and dishonest.  That's probably one of the reasons they are skating on the thin edge of bankruptcy.  May it come soon.

New York Police Fatally Shoot Street Vendor in Times Square

When I first heard this, I thought the police had grossly overreacted.  You don't shoot a 25 year old street vendor for selling knock-off merchandise.

But you do shoot him if he pulls out a machine pistol and opens fire first.  Now that was a fatal mistake.

Read about it here.

How Maureen Dowd Can Hear Better

"Does this tinfoil hat make my butt look big?"

Maureen Dowd, leftwing ideologue posing as a columnist for the New York Times, said this about the Joe Wilson affair:

Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

My advice:
If you want to hear better, Maureen, try pulling your head out of your ass.

Related Post:  Maureen Dowd Joins the RAAAAACISM Industrial Complex (Another Black Conservative)
..
Image:  In this photo Dowd is asking "Does this tinfoil hat make my butt look big?"
..
Nah,  it already looks big.

Why the Media Are So Flagrantly Biased

An epiphany!

Michelle Malkin has a post that says the New York Times is nearing "junk bond" status in its credit rating. The leftwing rag is losing money and failing. Malkin foresees a "bail out plea" from the Times, and suddenly it all makes sense. Or so says Mark Steyn.

He writes at the Corner:

The reason the press are going to such shameless lengths to drag Obama across the finish line is because he's their last best hope at restoring the old media environment, including a new Unfairness Doctrine for radio, and regulation of the Internet. The Obama's-already-won-give-it-up-you-GOP-losers stories are intended only to demoralize turnout. Bear in mind, that round about 5pm Eastern on Election Day, they'll be doing those stories at industrial strength, in order to clobber any Republican voters still dumb enough to think it's worth making the trip to the polls.

I get it! The mainstream media are failing financially and want to wipe out the competition, i.e. conservative talk radio and the internet. Their only hope for accomplishing that is to get Obama elected. This election is more than a political preference for them, it is about their long-term economic survival.

I don't feel sorry for the bastards. By creating a monopoly on opinion for so many years, they assured the arise of the competition that is now threatening them. But it does explain why the MSM has become so unprofessional, openly biased and Machiavellian in their reporting. They're desperate. Be sure and vote Republican and help them into their well deserved bankruptcy.

McCain Slams New York Times for Obvious Bias and Slant

From John McCain's website, he responds to the NY Times recent (false) allegations that McCain's Campaign Manager is on the payroll of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

A Partisan Paper of Record Today the New York Times launched its latest attack on this campaign in its capacity as an Obama advocacy organization. Let us be clear about what this story alleges: The New York Times charges that McCain-Palin 2008 campaign manager Rick Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until last month, contrary to previous reporting, as well as statements by this campaign and by Mr. Davis himself.

In fact, the allegation is demonstrably false. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis separated from his consulting firm, Davis Manafort, in 2006. As has been previously reported, Mr. Davis has seen no income from Davis Manafort since 2006. Zero. Mr. Davis has received no salary or compensation since 2006. Mr. Davis has received no profit or partner distributions from that firm on any basis -- weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, quarterly, semi-annual or annual -- since 2006. Again, zero. Neither has Mr. Davis received any equity in the firm based on profits derived since his financial separation from Davis Manafort in 2006.

Further, and missing from the Times' reporting, Mr. Davis has never -- never -- been a lobbyist for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Mr. Davis has not served as a registered lobbyist since 2005.

Though these facts are a matter of public record, the New York Times, in what can only be explained as a willful disregard of the truth, failed to research this story or present any semblance of a fairminded treatment of the facts closely at hand. The paper did manage to report one interesting but irrelevant fact: Mr. Davis did participate in a roundtable discussion on the political scene with...Paul Begala.

Again, let us be clear: The New York Times -- in the absence of any supporting evidence -- has insinuated some kind of impropriety on the part of Senator McCain and Rick Davis. But entirely missing from the story is any significant mention of Senator McCain's long advocacy for, and co-sponsorship of legislation to enact, stricter oversight and regulation of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- dating back to 2006. Please see the attached floor statement on this issue by Senator McCain from 2006.

To the central point our campaign has made in the last 48 hours: The New York Times has never published a single investigative piece, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Obama campaign chief strategist David Axelrod, his consulting and lobbying clients, and Senator Obama. Likewise, the New York Times never published an investigative report, factually correct or otherwise, examining the relationship between Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson and Senator Obama, who appointed Johnson head of his VP search committee, until the writing was on the wall and Johnson was under fire following reports from actual news organizations that he had received preferential loans from predatory mortgage lender Countrywide.

Therefore this "report" from the New York Times must be evaluated in the context of its intent and purpose. It is a partisan attack falsely labeled as objective news. And its most serious allegations are based entirely on the claims of anonymous sources, a familiar yet regretful tactic for the paper.

We all understand that partisan attacks are part of the political process in this country. The debate that stems from these grand and sometimes unruly conversations is what makes this country so exceptional. Indeed, our nation has a long and proud tradition of news organizations that are ideological and partisan in nature, the Huffington Post and the New York Times being two such publications. We celebrate their contribution to the political fabric of America. But while the Huffington Post is utterly transparent, the New York Times obscures its true intentions -- to undermine the candidacy of John McCain and boost the candidacy of Barack Obama -- under the cloak of objective journalism.

The New York Times is trying to fill an ideological niche. It is a business decision, and one made under economic duress, as the New York Times is a failing business. But the paper's reporting on Senator McCain, his campaign, and his staff should be clearly understood by the American people for what it is: a partisan assault aimed at promoting that paper’s preferred candidate, Barack Obama.

Statement by Senator John McCain, May 25, 2006:
Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

The New York Times Hit Piece on Sarah Palin

Tomorrow, Sunday, the New York Times will publish a hit piece on Sarah Palin. It begins:

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

The article that follows, however, fails to support the opening paragraph with other than the thinnest of argumentation. The Times admits that Sarah Palin, as Governor, was both effective and accessible.

So she fired some people and stepped on their toes: that's what we like about her! Get rid of the dead wood, the leeches and the incompetent. Do we expect them so say nice things about her now? No. So she hired "friends," otherwise known as loyal people whose work and character she knows and trusts. GOOD LORD, stop the presses!

The Times, it should be remembered, is a Democrat newspaper that has steadfastly failed to do any analysis on Barack Obama and his radical associations. Hit pieces are reserved for Republicans. Maybe that's why the New York Times' fortunes are in the descent, with loss of advertising revenues and layoffs. We're onto you, Times.

Read the whole story at Commentary Magazine. Hat tip to Mark Hemingway at the Corner.

Hemingway comments:

But again, the whole thing is just appalling. The New York Times hasn't begun to investigate Obama's deeply problematic background, nor have they run anything about him that has such an obvious and cringe inducing negative slant. Alas, it's just par for the course at the Times.

Yeah, until the Times goes bankrupt. I can hardly wait.