Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Does the New York Times work for Obama & Democrat Party?

Here's an article that says in essence it does!

New York Times' Sunday Review goes wall-to-wall for Obama's reelection

By Clay Waters

October 30, 2012

The New York Times has endorsed President Obama’s re-election and the paper is doing its best to help out any way it can. The latest move just reinforced the fact that the Times is so institutionally Democratic that it hasn’t endorsed a GOP presidential candidate during Obama’s lifetime.

That support plays out in the paper itself. New York Times Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal's Sunday Review was wall-to-wall for Obama this past week, with two left-wing op-eds on Obama on the front page, a full-page endorsement of Obama for re-election, and three liberal columnists simultaneously obsessed with abortion, including the paper's foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman. (Right-of-center Ross Douthat also covered women's issues, but questioned Obama's "weirdly paternalistic form of social liberalism.")

Over the fold on page 1 was "The Price of a Black President" by Frederick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University, who praised blacks for voting for Obama before going on to criticize Obama from the left.

“When African-Americans go to the polls next week, they are likely to support Barack Obama at a level approaching the 95 percent share of the black vote he received in 2008. As well they should, given the symbolic exceptionalism of his presidency and the modern Republican Party’s utter disregard for economic justice, civil rights and the social safety net,” he wrote.

Also on the front was Soros buddy Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist and moral scold, writing on inequality. He was just as subtle, Stiglitz busting “economic myths,” including: “America is a land of opportunity. ... Trickle-down economics works.”

“Mitt Romney has been explicit: inequality should be talked about only in quiet voices behind closed doors. But with the normally conservative magazine The Economist publishing a special series showing the extremes to which American inequality has grown -- joining a growing chorus (of which my book ‘The Price of Inequality’ is an example) arguing that the extremes of American inequality, its nature and origins, are adversely affecting our economy -- it is an issue that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice,” he wrote.

With about a week left in the election, who knows what else the Times could cook up to ensure President Obama’s victory on Election Day.

Columnist Maureen Dowd offered her usual measured take on women's issues and abortion in "Of Mad Men, Mad Women and Meat Loaf." “Our mom, a strict Catholic, taught us that it was immoral for a woman to be expected to carry a rapist’s baby for nine months. (Don’t even mention that rapists can assert parental rights in 31 states.)”

She then continued the liberal attack linking the GOP to rape. “But compassion is scant among the Puritan tribe of Republicans running now. As The Huffington Post reports, at least a dozen G.O.P. Senate candidates oppose abortion for rape victims. The party platform calls for a constitutional amendment with no exceptions for rape, incest or the mother’s life,” she continued.

Dowd predictably bashed two Republican election seekers, Rep. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, for controversial comments related to abortion and rape, then went into full condescension mode to explain why women may vote for the Republican ticket anyway: “Republicans are geniuses at getting people to vote against their own self-interest. Hispanics, however, do not seem inclined to vote against their self-interest on immigration laws, and Obama is counting on that to buoy him,” Dowd added.

Columnist Nicholas Kristof also raised the arcane rape statistic in his column on the same page, “Want a Real Reason to Be Outraged?”

Even foreign policy columnist Thomas Friedman got into the act, under the sarcastic headline "Why I Am Pro-Life." Of course he's not actually against abortion, he's just making the tired government argument that "pro-life" also means things like more money for the EPA and Head Start. He also details the Akin and Mourdock controversies. (Are Obama supporters highlighting anything else at this point?)

Sunday also offered the official full-page endorsement of President Obama for reelection. (No surprise: The last Republican the paper endorsed was Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.) Principled liberals might like to know that the long editorial offered not one word on drone attacks or the other war on terror issues Obama has embraced.

The paper warned: "An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.”

That was all in a day’s work at the Times. With about a week left in the election, who knows what else the paper could cook up to ensure Obama’s victory.

Editor's Note:

Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, a Media Research Center project that tracks The New York Times.

As the Editor of The American Cowboy Chronicles, I am very happy to post Clay Waters' article here. He makes a real good point, at the minimum we simply can't trust the New York Times.

As for me, my opinion is that I can't understand why anyone would want to read the New York Times.

I believe it's a rag not fit to line a birdcage or cat box; It's a liberal newspaper that reeks with unbridled bias against Republicans; It's filled with hate speech for anyone who is in the least bit conservative; It's part of the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party - no less than the ultra-left folks at MSNBC and CNN.

In the case of what took place in Libya, for example, the New York Times will do everything in its power to divert the attention of the public to lesser issues - evading the subject all together until after the election.

I believe they will do this as a concerted effort to hide anything that my bring any sort of negative light on President Obama.

In essence, this means the New York Times is working for the Obama White House in the exact same way that Pravda, which was the official news agency of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, spread the "truth" as the old Soviet Communist Party saw it.

Pravda, which ironically meand "truth" in Russian, is a Russian political newspaper associated with the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The newspaper was started by the Russian Revolutionaries during pre-World War I days and emerged as a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union after the Russian Revolution.

The newspaper also served as a central organ of the Central Committee of the RSDLP and the CPSU between 1912 and 1991.

After the dissolution of the USSR, Pravda was closed down by the then Russian President Boris Yeltsin. As

After restructuring, the Communist Party of Russian Federation acquired the newspaper in 1997 and established it as its principal mouthpiece.

Pravda is still functioning from the same headquarters on Pravda Street in Moscow where it was published in the Soviet days, but has only a small circulation.

During the Cold War, Pravda was well known in the West for its pronouncements as the official voice of Soviet Communism.

Stories behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War all had to be approved by the Soviet Union's Communist Party bosses before they could be published.   I can't help but wonder if there's someone at the Obama White House tasked with keeping the famed New York Times in tow. I can't help but wonder if the New York Times is Obama's Pravda!
My friends, today there is a great deal of work being done on the side of the liberal ilk in America to make sure that we Americans remember that our Founding Fathers were concerned about the government setting up a State Religion like there was in England.

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

We all understand that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Yes, America, though the vast majority is Christian, doesn't want a State Religion. We treasure our freedom to worship according to our own desires.

But at the same time, the government or any branch of government should not be allowed to establish a State Run Propaganda Agency.

I truly wish that those same liberals, whose rally cry is always "Separation of Church and State" when it comes to Christianity in America, would show half the concern about a "Separation between News Agencies and the State."

It is essential to protect Americans from State Run Propaganda agencies - who like The New York Times are apparently working for the Obama administration and the Democrat Party.

We here at The American Cowboy Chronicles want everyone to vote to save America!

While we know that we cannot regulate the bias of the New York Times, their working directly with the Obama Campaign is just one more reason why we need to vote to stop this out of control White House.

Tom Correa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.