New York Times



It used to be that we were told that Trump was fostering “Trump antisemitism” and driving a new wave of antisemitism in the US. But the cartoon depicts him as a Jew. Well, which is it? Is he fostering antisemitism, or is he now a closet Jew being led by Israel, depicted as a Jewish dog? We used to say that images “conjured up memories” of 1930s antisemitism. This didn’t conjure it up; this showed us exactly what it looked like.

The Nazis also depicted us as animals. They also put Stars of David on us. Antisemites have compared us to dogs, pigs and monkeys before. It used to be that it was on the far-Right that Jews were depicted as controlling the world, like an octopus or a spider.

But now we see how mainstream it has become to blame the Jews and Israel for the world’s problems.

For what it’s worth (not much) they published an apology and took the cartoon down.


- by CO2Insanity | 12 comments | Share Link

Image result for fake news

Here are the most egregious fake news stories of 2018. There was no shortage of fake news in 2018. Reads like a who’s who of the MSM.

- by CO2Insanity | 8 comments | Share Link

The New York Time was against war in Syria before it was for it.  Bottom line? No matter what Trump does they’re against it.

- by CO2Insanity | 2 comments | Share Link

NY Times changes social media guidelines so reporters don’t appear biased. Probably orders from Carlos Slim. You no tweeta or I cut offa you mordida!

- by CO2Insanity | 7 comments | Share Link

American Pravda, NYT: Slanting the News and a Bizarre Comey Connection. As far as politics go you can’t trust the mainstream media. It’s rigged.

- by CO2Insanity | 5 comments | Share Link

OH, LOOK: The NY Times Editorial Board Is Lying To Their Readers Again. Propaganda prevails at the NYT. If they ever saw a real AR-15 they’d fill their Depends.

- by CO2Insanity | 11 comments | Share Link

Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination. This doesn’t come from us, it’s the New York Times editorial board again today. Read the below and tell us it doesn’t make you wonder what they were smoking this morning.

Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history.

Qualified at what? Having an illegal server with illegal above top secret emails residing on it and lying her ass off about it? Perhaps having people donate money to the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State in return for “favors?”

In our opinion the only thing she’s “qualified” for is jail.

- by CO2Insanity | 24 comments | Share Link

A Chance to Reset the Republican Race. The New York Times is up their armpits in propaganda tactics today.

Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, though a distinct underdog, is the only plausible choice for Republicans tired of the extremism and inexperience on display in this race.

Yes John Kasich. The guy who will never (conveniently) be elected. Really NYT, you should include some LSD with these “editorials” if you want them to actually convince anyone.

- by CO2Insanity | 13 comments | Share Link

More layoffs loom at The New York Times as buyouts fall short. With stellar writing like publishing Darren Wilson’s address we can’t fathom why they need to lay people off.

- by CO2Insanity | 17 comments | Share Link

Two New York Times Reporters Posted Darren Wilson’s Home Address. Look Here To See THEIR Home Addresses. Tit for tat!


- by CO2Insanity | 53 comments | Share Link

Charles Blow, the New York Times columnist who seems to spend his fantasy time fellating Barack Obama, surprised the world by writing something critical about The One.

Of course, force of habit required that he spend the first 2/3 of his column setting up the criticism by comparing Republicans to robots but then he did the unthinkable and concluded by nothing Obama’s cold, aloof robotic personality:


Charles Blow, perhaps the most appropriately named man in the world

Blow, Charles, blow:

But one person I never thought would fall into this valley was Barack Obama, the charismatic candidate who electrified the electorate in 2008 and whom many saw as the fulfillment of the dream of the even-more-electrifying Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Yet here Obama is, down in the valley, struggling to connect with the American people and failing, increasingly coming across as dispassionate to some and outright revolting to others.

A robotic Sustainer-in-Chief with an eerie inhumanity will not satisfy.

And we know from countless previous columns that Charles likes to be satisfied by President Obama.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 7 comments | Share Link

She may work for the New York Times Style section, but we would suggest that you not entrust your future fashion decisions to writer Judith Newman. We don’t mean to be harsh, but it seems obvious that the woman has no taste.


Hair heroine? C'mon, it looks like she ate at KFC and wiped her hands in her golden locks.

Here’s an excerpt from Newman’s bizarre comments on Wasserman Schultz:

I thought I was tilting at windmills until I discovered my new cultural and hair hero, the Florida congresswoman and chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz…

Politics aside, I love the congresswoman’s guts in not bowing to the vast Blowout Conspiracy. Sometimes she’s got those blonde waves, sometimes she’s got pin-curls, but I’ve never seen her on a Sunday morning chat show with helmet hair. She is a serious, passionate voice for progressive politics in this country, and she’s not afraid to have hair that’s passionate, too.

Stay tuned for future delusional articles by Judith Newman:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, hubba hubba

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, if Wasserman wasn’t already her middle name Diplomacy would be

Debbie Wasserman Schultz – funnier than Charles Schultz, smarter than Sgt Schultz, prettier than Ed Schultz

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 43 comments | Share Link

Frequent commenter and occasional contributor Perlcat once again hops up on his soapbox and vents his spleen:

I just ran across a fascinating donk article in the New York Times that seemed worried about Barry becoming the new Jimmy.

No shit, Sherlock, in so many ways. There are just so very many great lines in this article:


What you see is what you get: Barry has become Jimmy

Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already ‘neutered’ the president, as one told me.

No, Moochelle already did that.

They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator.

Howling with laughter, that’s me!

More and more, 2008 looks like the tulip mania.

She means the “tulip mania” that left Holland devastated, not the nasty place Barry put his two lips on that trip.

They yearned to see the president beat the political suicide bombers over the head with the Constitution.

That would be the only possible use the “constitutional lawyer” has for it. He certainly hasn’t made himself familiar with its contents.

These paragraphs delight me:

Consider what the towel-snapping Tea Party crazies have already accomplished. They’ve changed the entire discussion. They’ve neutralized the White House. They’ve whipped their leadership into submission.

They’ve taken taxes and revenues off the table. They’ve withered the stock and bond markets. They’ve made journalists speak to them as though they’re John Calhoun and Alexander Hamilton.

Obama and John Boehner have been completely outplayed by the “hobbits,” as The Wall Street Journal and John McCain called them.

I especially love the last paragraph of the article:

What if this is all a cruel joke on us? What if the people who hate government are good at it and the people who love government are bad at it?

The essence of good government is summed up by one of their own, Thoreau: “That government is best which governs least.” So, yes, by that definition, the TEA party members are the ones best at government.

No shit, Sherlock. I never thought I’d ever read a Dowd column that wasn’t fit only to wipe my a** with.

Blind sow, meet ACORN.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 14 comments | Share Link

Sunday’s debt ceiling deal is so complex that we couldn’t figure out if it was good or bad. Not, that is, until we found out how much the New York Times hates the deal.

It just doesn’t get any better than that.


Tantrum at the Times: Whaaaaaaaaaa!

Here’s the Times pissed off point of view:

There is little to like about the tentative agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House except that it happened at all. The deal would avert a catastrophic government default, immediately and probably through the end of 2012. The rest of it is a nearly complete capitulation to the hostage-taking demands of Republican extremists. It will hurt programs for the middle class and poor, and hinder an economic recovery.

It is not yet set in stone, and there may still be time to make it better. But in the end, most Democrats will have no choice but to swallow their fury, accept the deal, and, we hope, fight harder the next time.

We still don’t know how it will all shake out, but we know we rest a little easier knowing that the voice of the radical left hates this deal.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 34 comments | Share Link

According to a New York Times article, Osama Bin Laden was a staunch Democrat who believed in the party platform and would have voted for Obama, proving yet again, voting for Democrats can be bad for your health.

osama democrat

And no Republican would be caught dead (you'll pardon the expression) wearing a beard like that

Here are the Times’ five top tips indicating that Bin Laden was a Democrat:

5. Anti-Capitalist – “In 2007, he complained that Democratic control of Congress had not ended the war in Iraq, a fact he attributed to the pernicious influence of ‘big corporations.'”

4. Read Noam Chomsky – “In other messages he commented on the writings of Noam Chomsky, the leftist professor at M.I.T.”

3. Praised Jimmy Carter – “… praised former President Jimmy Carter’s book supporting Palestinian rights…”

2. Believed in “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” – “In October, when American intelligence was close on the trail of the courier and spy satellites were taking detailed photographs of the house, Bin Laden issued two audio statements urging help for victims of floods in Pakistan. ‘We are in need of a big change in the method of relief work because the number of victims is great due to climate changes in modern times,’ he said.”

And the #1 reason we know bin Laden was a Democrat according to the New York Times:

1. He didn’t mind killing innocent babies. Like all good Democrats, he spent his time “…calling for mass murder.”

– Written by P. King

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 6 comments | Share Link

The New York Times, that stalwart defender of all things liberal, put its money where its mouth is this week by demonstrating its own commitment to deficit spending.

AFP reports on the particulars of the Times’ investment prowess:

new york times building

In a weird sort of way you have to admire the New York Times' commitment to deficit spending

The Boston Globe reported Friday that a businessman is preparing to offer more than $200 million to buy the struggling newspaper from its owner, The New York Times Co.

The Boston Globe said Aaron Kushner will make a formal offer within the next few weeks for the Times Co.’s New England Media Group, which includes the Boston Globe,, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette of central Massachusetts and

… The Times Co., whose holdings include The New York Times and International Herald Tribune in addition to The Boston Globe, sought a buyer for the Globe in 2009 but failed to receive bids attractive enough to merit a sale.

The Times Co. bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993 but the value of the newspaper has plummeted since then, along with the fortunes of the US newspaper industry.

To review: The Times paid $1.1 billion and is selling for $200 million. In other words, they lost $900 million on this nifty little transaction. In other other words, they lost 82% of their original investment.

These geniuses have a big future in the Obama administration.

Source: AFP

- by editor | 15 comments | Share Link

“All the news that fits to print” is out as the New York Times’ slogan. “All the news these morons will pay for” is in.


Its readers are ignorant? This is truly a case of "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones." has the inside info on the ignorance:

The New York Times cultivates an image as the preferred read of the intellectual elite, but at least one of the paper’s higher-ups seems to think its customers aren’t all that bright.

During a panel discussion at the Digital Hollywood New York conference, Gerald Marzorati, the Times’s assistant managing editor for new media and strategic initiatives, explained why the paper’s print business is still robust. “We have north of 800,000 subscribers paying north of $700 a year for home delivery,” Marzorati said. “Of course, they don’t seem to know that.”

As evidence that Times subscribers don’t realize how much a subscription costs, he pointed to what happened when the paper raised its home-delivery price by 5 percent during the recession: Only 0.01 percent of subscribers canceled. “I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that they’re literally not understanding what they’re paying,” he said. “That’s the beauty of the credit card.”

Far be it from us to cast aspersions, but considering the New York Times editorial board’s blind adherence to Obama’s economic program, it appears that those geniuses are no smarter with money than their readers are.


- by editor | 7 comments | Share Link

Pity CBS and the New York Times. They can see the Republican tidal wave coming, but their liberal bias is so strong that they can’t bring themselves to admit the size of what they see.

Take the results of the latest CBS/New York Times poll, for example:


CBS and the New York Times love black people 77% more than the U.S. Census Bureau does

With the midterm elections less than a week away, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that Republicans continue to hold an advantage over Democrats in the generic House ballot. Forty-six percent of likely voters say they plan to vote Republican, while 40 percent say they will vote Democrat.

Americans are divided in their views of the job President Obama is doing: 45% approve, while 47% disapprove.

If you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the poll, however, you’ll find the following paragraph:

This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,173 adults nationwide, interviewed by telephone October 22-26, 2010. An oversample of African Americans was interviewed, for a total of 273 interviews with African Americans.

What this means is that CBS and the New York Times have stacked the deck in this poll two different ways. And both of them lessen the impact of the aforementioned tidal wave.

First, they oversampled blacks, who are not just predominantly Democrat, but overwhelmingly Democrat. Blacks are approximately 13% of the population, yet in this poll they account for 23% of the respondents.

Obama’s not on the ballot and it is widely expected that black turn-out will decrease in this election, not increase. So what rationale could possibly justify oversampling by 77% (10/13) an ethnic group that voted 95% Democrat in the last election?

Based on this, we assume somewhere around 170% of blacks will vote Democrat in this election. Of course, this will necessarily require a major “get out the vote” effort in cemeteries across the country, but those are traditional Democrat strongholds.

Second, self-identified party breakdown (weighted) in this poll shows 28% Republicans, 38% Democrats and 45% Independents. Do CBS and the New York Times really think Democrats outnumber Republicans by 35% (10/28) in a year when Republicans are expected to dominate the balloting? For god’s sake, man, Obama only won by 7% in in 2008 in what was widely considered a runaway election.

To show just how distorted these figures are, on the same day this CBS/New York Times poll was released, Gallup released a poll on the composition of likely 2010 voters. It shows 55% Republican/Lean Republican, 40% Democrat/Lean Democrat and 4% Independent.

Of course, it’s always possible that Gallup oversampled racist, sexist, homophobic conservatives. But we doubt it.

Source: CBS News, Gallup

- by editor | 16 comments | Share Link

How do you know when the Democrats’ entire “Chamber of Commerce is doing something illegal” meme is blowing up in their faces?

When even the über liberal New York Times condemns the commercial that makes the claim:

A closer examination shows that there is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

Coming up next: Little old ladies and puppies are collecting illegal foreign money to steal our democracy.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 12 comments | Share Link

“Pot calls kettle black! Film at ten.” No one could blame Fox if that’s how they teased this story on their nightly newscast. has the embarrassing details:

brian stetler media blogger

New York Times media blogger Brian Stetler, hypocritcal and good-looking

Brian Stelter, who reports on TV & digital media for The New York Times, sent out a Tweet the other day that drew lots of attention.

As Stelter Tweeted, “Fox, as we all know, has biggest audience in prime time. But among African Americans, it’s smallest– 29k vs. 134k for CNN, 145k for MSNBC.”

This of course, played into the “Fox is racist” meme, and, not surprisingly, Stelter’s words were re-Tweeted many times (and also inspired several media blogs to further discuss Fox News’ lack of diversity).

Interestingly, though, the media site where Stelter primarily blogs (New York Times’ Media Decoder) suffers from the lowest percentage of African-American readers (4.6%) when compared to comparable media sites like Mediaite (5.8%), Gawker (6.4%), Mediabistro (9.2%), etc., according to Nielsen Media Research.

The New York Times could really use a little more diversity. Hypocritical morons are overrepresented on its staff.


- by editor | 7 comments | Share Link

chevy volt prototype

An early prototype for the electric, but hardly electrifying Chevy Volt

Edward Niedermeyer, editor of The Truth About Cars, wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times about the new Government Motors’ (GM) new Chevy Volt. Let’s be generous and say it was less than complimentary:

GENERAL MOTORS introduced America to the Chevrolet Volt at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show as a low-slung concept car that would someday be the future of motorized transportation. It would go 40 miles on battery power alone, promised G.M., after which it would create its own electricity with a gas engine. Three and a half years — and one government-assisted bankruptcy later – G.M. is bringing a Volt to market that makes good on those two promises. The problem is, well, everything else.

For starters, G.M.’s vision turned into a car that costs $41,000 before relevant tax breaks … but after billions of dollars of government loans and grants for the Volt’s development and production. And instead of the sleek coupe of 2007, it looks suspiciously similar to a Toyota Prius. It also requires premium gasoline, seats only four people (the battery runs down the center of the car, preventing a rear bench) and has less head and leg room than the $17,000 Chevrolet Cruze, which is more or less the non-electric version of the Volt.

In short, the Volt appears to be exactly the kind of green-at-all-costs car that some opponents of the bailout feared the government might order G.M. to build. Unfortunately for this theory, G.M. was already committed to the Volt when it entered bankruptcy. And though President Obama’s task force reported in 2009 that the Volt “will likely be too expensive to be commercially successful in the short term,” it didn’t cancel the project.

Cancel the project? Are you insane, Niedermeyer?

The Chevy Volt is the car Hollywood hypocrites need to park between their Ferraris and their Lamborghinis to show that they’re environmentally conscious. It’s the car in Laurie David needs to terrorize Santa Monica’s quiet residential neighborhoods. It’s the car Leonard DiCaprio needs to travel between his mansion and his private jet.

But most of all, it’s the car that Barack Obama needs to demonstrate his scorn for market forces.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 12 comments | Share Link


Former Secretary of the Interior and Alaska governor Wally Hickel is turning over in his grave

The New York Times had to issue a correction – a series of corrections, actually – regarding its obituary on former Secretary of the Interior and Alaskan Governor Walter Hickel. Turns out the Times had more facts wrong than right.

An obituary in some copies on May 9 about Walter J. Hickel, the former governor of Alaska and United States secretary of the interior, included several errors.
Mr. Hickel graduated from Claflin High School in Kansas; he was not a high school dropout.
The 1994 book “The Wit and Wisdom of Wally Hickel” was a collection of quotations from Mr. Hickel, not his autobiography.
After being dismissed as interior secretary and returning to Alaska, he ran for governor four more times, not three.
 And while a federal judge did initially reject an agreement proposed by Governor Hickel to drop all state and federal lawsuits against Exxon in the Valdez oil spill case in exchange for the company’s paying for cleanup and restoration, a revised version of that agreement was later accepted.

A Times story with this many inaccuracies could only have been written by Thomas Friedman. Nice to see that he’s picking up a little work off the editorial page.


- by editor | 3 comments | Share Link


Stalin believed in cradle-to-grave care, but put added emphasis on the grave part of the equation.

European socialism is dead. Even the New York Times can no longer deny it. Of course, that doesn’t stop the Times from promoting the same failed system here in the United States, but that’s another story.

Across Western Europe, the “lifestyle superpower,” the assumptions and gains of a lifetime are suddenly in doubt. The deficit crisis that threatens the euro has also undermined the sustainability of the European standard of social welfare, built by left-leaning governments since the end of World War II.

Europeans have boasted about their social model, with its generous vacations and early retirements, its national health care systems and extensive welfare benefits, contrasting it with the comparative harshness of American capitalism.

Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella. They have also translated higher taxes into a cradle-to-grave safety net. “The Europe that protects” is a slogan of the European Union.

But all over Europe governments with big budgets, falling tax revenues and aging populations are experiencing rising deficits, with more bad news ahead.

With low growth, low birthrates and longer life expectancies, Europe can no longer afford its comfortable lifestyle, at least not without a period of austerity and significant changes. The countries are trying to reassure investors by cutting salaries, raising legal retirement ages, increasing work hours and reducing health benefits and pensions.

The most important sentence in that excerpt are, “Europeans have benefited from low military spending, protected by NATO and the American nuclear umbrella.”

Yes, your tax dollars enabled the Europeans to believe the world was a real life Candyland and convinced them they could spend foolishly on unsustainable social folderol.

But the folderol has come home to roost.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 1 comment | Share Link


You could fit some pro-amnesty protests in a phone booth. If you could find a phone booth.

The New York Times routinely ignores massive conservative protests because they’re just too darn busy covering ridiculously small liberal protests.

For example, reporter Julia Preston wrote a glowing 780-word story earlier this year about a four-student march from Miami to Washington, D.C. in support of illegal immigrant students.

This week Preston upped the ante, writing about a five student sit-in at John McCain’s Arizona office. The story was deemed significant enough to include photo of the squatting students.

In an escalation of protest tactics, five immigrants dressed in caps and gowns held a sit-in on Monday at the Tucson offices of Senator John McCain, calling on him to sponsor legislation to open a path to legal status for young illegal immigrants.

Four of the protesters, including three who are in the country illegally, were arrested Monday evening on misdemeanor trespassing charges. The three were expected to face deportation proceedings.

And as if she Preston was worried that you may have missed her earlier story about the four student march, she referred back to it:

Illegal immigrant students have become increasingly public in their protests in recent months, as the prospects for an immigration overhaul faded in Washington. Four immigrant students walked from Miami to Washington, arriving in late April. So far, immigration authorities have not moved to detain student protesters.

Good lord. Why, at the rate these protests are growing, they could be up to ten, maybe twelve people in no time at all. And that’s what the New York Times calls front page news.

Source:, New York Times

- by editor | 4 comments | Share Link

Lt. Col. Allen West

The brilliant, charismatic former army Lt. Col. Allen West is running for Congress as a Republican in Florida's 22nd District.

We made up the “self-loathing” part, but you just know it probably got edited out of the New York Times story on black Republican candidates at the very last minute. It’s just the way liberals think.

The Times has the painful story of changing times:

Among the many reverberations of President Obama’s election, here is one he probably never anticipated: at least 32 African-Americans are running for Congress this year as Republicans, the biggest surge since Reconstruction, according to party officials.

The House has not had a black Republican since 2003, when J. C. Watts of Oklahoma left after eight years.

But now black Republicans are running across the country — from a largely white swath of beach communities in Florida to the suburbs of Phoenix, where an African-American candidate has raised more money than all but two of his nine (white) Republican competitors in the primary.

Party officials and the candidates themselves acknowledge that they still have uphill fights in both the primaries and the general elections, but they say that black Republicans are running with a confidence they have never had before. They credit the marriage of two factors: dissatisfaction with the Obama administration, and the proof, as provided by Mr. Obama, that blacks can get elected.

“I ran in 2008 and raised half a million dollars, and the state party didn’t support me and the national party didn’t support me,” said Allen West, who is running for Congress in Florida and is one of roughly five black candidates the party believes could win. “But we came back and we’re running and things are looking great.”

But interviews with many of the candidates suggest that they felt empowered by Mr. Obama’s election, that it made them realize that what had once seemed impossible — for a black candidate to win election with substantial white support — was not.

The New York Times is shocked – shocked, we tell you – that a black man could be a conservative and even more shocked that racist white conservatives would vote for him.

Come November, let’s see if they report that white Democrat voters are racist for voting against those black conservatives.

We won’t hold our breath.

Source: New York Times

- by editor | 6 comments | Share Link