Because The New York Times Won't Cover It

The link to the Silenced No More report documenting the sexual assault crimes of Hamas and participating Gaza civilians in the October 7 attack on Israel and in its aftermath can be retrieved and read here.

I'd strongly suggest not eating or drinking anything before reading it. 

Know that the sexual attacks were systemic, planned and organized by Hamas beforehand and part of a deliberate strategy of atrocities, and these deliberate acts were, by any definition, atrocities.

If you can't make it through the report, and you very well might not, a decent summary can be found at The Medialine: How the ‘Silenced No More’ Report Documents Sexual Violence on October 7 and Israeli Civil Commission Report Says Hamas-Led October 7 Attack Included Organized Sexual Violence.

Very Convenient Timing By Kristoff And The New York Times

Quite interesting how the unsubstantiated opinion piece by Nicholas Kristoff in the  New York Times to bash Israel with lurid claims that Israel had prisons with dogs trained to sexually abuse prisoners, just happened to come out a day before a report on actual and documented sexual violence perpetrated by Hamas and the Gazans:

First on CNN: New report details ‘systematic’ rape and sexual violence during Hamas’ Oct 7 attack on Israel

Why, one might almost think it was not a coincidence and deliberately run to get the factual report of Hamas and Gazan depravity from the headlines and distract attention from it.

The New York Times did not cover the report on the October 7 attack at all. 

Funny, that.

Funny also that one must point out that Israelis security personnel were previously criticized for refusing to rape Arab women, because racism, or something.   Yep, that claim actually happened, twice.

The New York Times Whistles Past The Trend Of Leftist Political Violence

Today, in The New York Times The Morning Newsletter, the paper decided to discuss the attempted assassination of President Trump yesterday with this lovely example of willfully avoiding a discussion of Leftist violence.

The guests at the dinner included many whose lives had previously been affected by gun violence, including Trump, Erika Kirk and Representative Steve Scalise, who was shot at a congressional baseball game practice in 2017.

The New York Times blithely ignores the common theme in all of these acts of "gun violence" - the perpetrator in question was a leftist in each and every one:

President Trump's current attempted assassin was a progressive leftist from California, spouting Democrat talking points. The prior one in September 2024  in Florida was also from a  registered Democrat. The one before that in July 2024 in Butler, PA was yet another progressive.

Erika Kirk - Charlie Kirk, her husband, was, you guessed it, killed by a leftist.

Steve Scalise - shot by a Bernie Bro. 

Funny how the New York Times fails to both notice and not comment on this trend, but just waves it away with the canard of  "gun violence".

Layers Of Fact-Checking Excellence At The New York Times

The New York Times headline speaks volumes as to the lack of general knowledge of today's journalists:

Well that "North American Treaty Organization" is a NATO that truly Needs America To Operate.

Then again the actual NATO also Needs America To Operate.

Verily, as Ben Rhodes stated regarding journalists and whether they know anything:   “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

Ben, of course, used that lack of knowledge to manipulate the journalists to sell Obama's ridiculous and dangerous foreign policy - leading to much of the current troubles with Iran today. 

Indeed, the journalists of the New York Times know nothing and have forgotten nothing. 

The Narrative Is Nothing If Not Predictable

The California mass killing at a dance hall that left ten dead has followed the by now rather predictable narrative:

1.  First, the claim is made before the facts are out that it was a race-based attack and blame is placed on white supremacy or "hate".

2,  When the facts then show it was an Asian man attacking other Asians, the narrative shifts immediately, without missing a beat, to "gun violence".

The shift from blaming the attacker to blaming a tool is as rapid as it is predictable.

The New York Times: Good morning. Once again, America is confronting the aftermath of a gun massacre.

. . .


The gunman, whom the authorities identified as 72-year-old Huu Can Tran, is believed to have then gone to a dance hall in the neighboring city of Alhambra. But he fled, according to the authorities. Officers later found him in a parked van after he reportedly shot himself to death.

The gunman used “a magazine-fed semiautomatic assault pistol” that is probably not legal in California, Luna said. His motives remain under investigation.

“Gun violence needs to stop,” Luna said. “There’s too much of it.”

This kind of mass shooting has become tragically common in the U.S.; what would be a rare horror in any other developed country is typical here. Yet the cause is no mystery. America has an enormous amount of guns, making it easier for someone to carry out a deadly shooting.

. . .

If anything, the chart, which uses data from 2017 and 2018, understates America’s problem. The U.S. rate of gun homicides has increased in recent years, according to the Small Arms Survey.

And just like that, right on cue, the narrative jumped from  the bugbear of a race-based attack (and one should note that in the US, the vast majority of attacks on Asians from non-Asians are committed by African-Americans, not whites) to "gun violence". 

Funny how the NYT notes gun violence has "increased in recent years"  but doesn't look at all into the reasons for that like the Ferguson effect, the Defund the Police Movement, the End Cash Bail Movement, and the fact that the majority of violence is confined to a small but active criminal subset of the population that gets the revolving door treatment from the justice system.

The New York Times Buries The Lede Completely

The New York Times in The morning email (and on its website) asks an important question: Good morning. We look at why the West didn’t try harder to prevent the invasion of Ukraine.

The article asks and looks back to see if there was any way to have stopped the Russian invasion of Ukraine and what the West could have done. 

First the article really, really, realy soft-peddles the fact that Russia has strategic nuclear weapons, which is one helluva factor in any active boots-on-the-ground response, unlike the 1991 Gulf War they compare as an example of a grand alliance responding to aggression.  Pace the Times, this is one heckuva difference a a rather important one.

The article addresses the meek response by Western Europe, due to it's lack of military spending and military capabilities. Remember when Trump was cajoling them to spend more on defense as part of NATO and the NYT and others were aghast and agog that he dared do so and accused him of weakening the alliance?  Good times.

The article now expects Western Europe to start taking more of a role in its own defense.  Hmm, someone was pushing for that just a few years ago and was derided for it by the Times. 

The article also completely ignores Western Europe's deliberate decision to make themselves reliant on Russian gas rather than producing their own gas and power.

It then goes on to accuse America of being isolationist and not wanting to commit ground troops.  Rather facile that, and again ignores the whole potential for a nuclear exchange as a result, not to mention the deliberate weakening of the US military and its current laser-focus on diversity, inclusion, and equity over war-fighting.

One rather important event is conspicuously missing and completely unmentioned for why there was a lack of deterrence to a Russian invasion:

Namely, Biden's public statement that a minor incursion might just be accepted:

“I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does,” Biden said. “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion, and then we end up having to fight about what to do and not do, et cetera, but if they actually do what they are capable of doing with the force they’ve massed on the border, it is going to be a disaster for Russia.”

The White House later clarified his remarks, saying any movement of Russian forces into Ukraine would be considered an invasion.

Biden's statement provided the opposite of a strong deterrent effect and instead green-lit a "minor incursion", emboldening Putin to go for a lightning strike decapitation of Ukraine's leadership which thankfully failed. 

Biden's "minor incursion" remark will go down with April Gillespie's "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts" and that "the Kuwait issue is not associated with America" as exactly how you do not prevent an invasion and rather embolden and invader via diplomatic statements.

Just When You Think You've Heard The Dumbest Things On The Ukraine Crisis, Along Comes The New York Times

So how are you all enjoying the "Minor Incursion" so far?

Do notice how it didn't happen under Trump, whom many falsely accuse of being Putin's puppet  (forgetting that Trump put the biggest hurt on Russia of all the most recent presidents), but happened under the "adult in the room" Biden, and before him the last Russia into Ukraine incursion was under Obama.  

Why is that, one wonders? 

Anyways, The New York Times doesn't consider such a question, no time to dwell on it I suppose, but it did go on to ask the following this morning.

The New York Times: Good morning. Why aren’t the U.S. and its allies imposing tougher sanctions?

Behind a paywall, but you can get it sent right to your email box.

The author of the piece notes the announced sanctions aren't exactly severe, (who coulda guessed that would happen?) and then wonders why more aggressive sanctions aren't being carried put and suggests some that reveal a complete lack of understanding of reality,  so let's get to the funny bits:

But it’s also worth taking a look at the potential sanctions that the U.S., Britain and the European Union have chosen not to impose. They are almost certainly more severe than the sanctions going into effect. A full-scale diplomatic response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could include:

-Suspending Russia from international organizations, like the SWIFT network of banks (as Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, suggested yesterday) and the Interpol network of law enforcement

-Seizing apartments, yachts and other assets owned by many members of the Russian elite in London, Miami and elsewhere, as Anne Applebaum of The Atlantic has suggested.

-Cracking down on Vladimir Putin’s propaganda tools in the West, including the RT television network, and on people like Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor who now works for a Russian oil company.

-Perhaps most significant, sharply reduce purchases of Russian oil and natural gas, by far the country’s largest source of revenue.

Ok, now that we're done laughing at the naivete, let's go through some of these.

Swift and Interpol: Dumping Russia from SWIFT and Interpol is not something that happens overnight. Doing it will have some dangerous effects on the world financial system, not to mention undermine lots of anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism efforts and monitoring that happen in the SWIFT network and Interpol.  Want Russia's international money movements and their criminals activities outside of Russia to go totally dark?  Have at it.

Seizing Other People's Stuff: Notice how Progressives just love to seize other people's stuff?  Also there's nothing better than a pundit yelling: "Hey let's have you and him fight"  from their happy place. No chance any of that could go badly nor of any retaliation, nor seizing innocent people's stuff, right?

Cracking down on other media:  Ah, the MSM's ongoing dream of censoring other news outlets.  Obviously RT runs propaganda, but you can gain some useful intel from what they're saying - and what they're not saying. Not to mention they do run some actual news now and then that our MSM doesn't touch.

And now for the dumbest suggestion yet:   Have Western Europe and the US stop buying Russian oil and natural gas.

This is where you can tell the author has no damn clue whatsoever and an utter lack of seriousness.

Western Europe has been going on a greenie climate change binge for awhile now, and has dumped their power generation and heating capacity and is now fully and totally dependent on Russian gas.

It's not like they can just stop buying it - they can't.

Biden had lifted sanctions that had been imposed by Trump on the Russian pipeline bringing gas to Western Europe, cementing Europe's dependence on Russian gas.  Biden also cancelled support for the Israel to Europe gas pipeline making Western Europe even more dependent on Russian gas with no alternative supply.

Biden also cancelled Keystone and multiple oil and gas drilling leases in the US, reducing our production, so dont expect the US to step in, and we now we need to buy Russian gas too - they're now our largest foreign supplier.

What is Western Europe, with no alternate - by design - to Russian natural gas supposed to do mid-winter? Just turn it off and tell their people to freeze for the cause? 

Good luck with that happening, you Greenies and Dems toadying up to Russia made that impossible.  

It's not like there's now an American surplus of oil and gas to step in and provide supply.  Biden and the Dems aggressively nixed that opportunity and show no inclination of reconsidering and getting production up to even pre-pandemic levels.

The utter clueless-ness of the so called experts and the pundits of our media, in America's allegedly leading newspaper no less,  is rather hilarious and depressing as well.

Gee New York Times, I Wonder Why There Was All That Negativity

The New York Times has a daily email service, The Morning Newsletter  chock-full of all sorts of right-thinking (or is that left-thinking) progressive analysis about the news.

I like to read it to see what the progressive explanation of events, lack of same,  or wish list du jour might be.

So, imagine my surprise with today's top article: Bad News Bias.

Sadly, when you click the link you'll likely hit a paywall, so I'll only except the portion I'm discussing from the email received.

The article title: Good morning. The U.S. media is offering a different picture of Covid-19 from science journals or the international media, a study finds.

The coverage by U.S. publications with a national audience has been much more negative than coverage by any other source that the researchers analyzed, including scientific journals, major international publications and regional U.S. media. “The most well-read U.S. media are outliers in terms of their negativity,” Molly Cook, a co-author of the study, told me.

About 87 percent of Covid coverage in national U.S. media last year was negative. The share was 51 percent in international media, 53 percent in U.S. regional media and 64 percent in scientific journals.

 Of course, there's no reflection in the article as to why the mainstream media might, perchance, have wanted to convey a message that things were far more negative and worse than they actually were during a presidential election year when Trump was in office.  Nope, none at all.

The author of the newsletter does however note : 

If we’re constantly telling a negative story, we are not giving our audience the most accurate portrait of reality. We are shading it.

Nice that he gets to that point a little late in the game. 

So, of course, now that the damage is done,  he states he's glad the study gives the media a chance to do better and they'll likely endeavor to shade things more positively, just in time for the Biden-Harris administration.

Funny how that consistently just happens that way.  See for example look to the media's coverage of "Kids in cages" under Trump vs "Kids in surge facilities" or even better "Kids? What kids? There is no problem to cover" under Obama and now Biden. See also how there's now a severe dearth of coverage of the current crisis at the border.

Not surprised that its happening but rather surprised that they're admitting to this kind of biased coverage, even as they explain it away as blaming the audience for wanting to see negative things. Still its a surprise to see they are admitting it was occurring, even a little bit - bit of course they'll use it to apologize for their negative bias and promise to be all positive for Biden-Harris.

Brace Yourselves: Krugman Forecasts A Bright Economic Future.

This is the same Krugman who pontificated upon President Trump's election and the question of when the market will recover stated:

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

Not a particularly good prognostication, that, and it didn't age well, at all.

So hang onto your hats, as his first-pass answer in the New York Times to a Biden win is the circumstances

suggests that Joe Biden will eventually preside over a soaring, “morning in America”-type recovery.

This may be a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day, and right on this prediction, or he may be as right as he was regarding Trump's election and the economy -- and his guess then missed it by over a mile. 

But, if we go by Krugman's track record on such things, expect a recession or a major slump shortly.

Of course, after laying out in detail all the reasons why such a recovery will have nothing to do with Biden or his policies, but due to the nature of the pandemic and recovery from it, he then states Biden and progressive policies should take full credit for it, naturally.  

He also gets lots of shots in at Trump and Republicans but after all that's expected of Krugman - a man more often wrong than not, but never in doubt.

NY Times Conveniently Decides Protests Are Now Patriotic Again.

Not very long ago, the NY Times Opinion page was chock full of how protesting against the government was dangerous, un-American, and downright unpatriotic if not unconstitutional (yes, really).

Anti-Lockdown Rebels Don’t Get to Choose Their Own Constitution

and

The Anti-Lockdown Protesters Have a Twisted Conception of Liberty

In short, protests against the government according to the NY Times was bad, and racist too.

It had been so written.

But now - Hooray! Protests are Patriotic once again!

New York Times: In America, Protest Is Patriotic.

The NY York Times, it be a changin'.

So protests with looting and arson in the name of a politically favorable cause = good.

Peaceful protests against arbitrary and capricious lockdown decisions, with no violence, looting, vandalism, or rioting, not to mention leaving the protest grounds cleaner than how the anti-lockdown protstors found them = bad.

Got it.

Seriously New York Times? Really?

If one thought no one could top Ilhan Omar's remark that 9/11 was a matter of "Some people did something", the New York Times was up to the challenge.

Tweeted by them today:

From "Some People" to "Some Airplanes".

That's a quite a way for the NYT to mark the 9/11 attack in its own hometown.

It's interesting to see how the left view Islamic Terrorists as having no agency, even as they committed the worst terrorist attack on our soil in history, nor being responsible for their actions.

Pathetic.

A Six Word Motto for America

Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, The New York Times is running a cute contest to have readers come up with a 6 word motto to sum up the USA.

A view of the entries reveals that, unsurprisingly, the New York Times readership seems mainly composed of America hating, self-loathing moonbats and assorted leftists. (and the NYT wonders why its subscriptions and stock prices keep dropping faster than a high-demand call girl's undies.)

So to answer such, here are my suggested mottoes, feel free to post some of your own here or even better at the New York Times' page, but do be polite.

Freeing People From Tyrants Since 1776.

Piss us off, we'll bomb you.

Always Saving Europe From German Invasion.

You send rhetoric, we send Marines.

Keeping the world safe without thanks.

Not perfect but beats the alternative.

Carrying the load, while others bitch.

While others dream, we get'r done.

Not arrogant, just better than you.

The Land Of Promise For All.

Always Defeating Commies, Fascists and Thugs.

The Country Where All Can Prosper.

and one sure to get all the moonbats in a tizzy:

The Last, Best Hope For Humanity.