posted July 12, 2006 10:38 PM            

In the end, Lenin's boast they would hang capitalists with the rope we sold them proved to be BS. Of course Lenin didn't get a chance to work on that very long because Stalin had him murdered...poisoned as I recall.

And when another Soviet leader said the Soviet Union would bury us, that proved to be BS as well.

So, the "better Red than Dead" leftist crowd toils on continuing the march down that long road to ultimate victory.

Workers of the world unite and throw off the yokes of your oppressors

N.Y. Times: Better dead than read
July 12, 2006
6:05 p.m. Eastern

Ann Coulter

When I told a New York Observer reporter that my only regret was that Timothy McVeigh didn't hit the New York Times building, I knew many would agree with me – but I didn't expect that to include the New York Times. And yet, the Times is doing everything in its power to help the terrorists launch another attack on New York City.

As with forced school busing, liberals seem to believe that the consequences of their insane ideas can be confined to the outer boroughs.

Last year, the Times revealed a top secret program tracking phone calls connected to numbers found in Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's cell phone. How much more probable cause do you need, folks? Shall we do this as a diagram? How about in the form of an SAT question – or is that a touchy subject for the publisher of the Times? "9-11 architect Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is to terrorist attacks as ..."?

Their reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha – just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at the New York Times.)

And most recently, ignoring the pleas of the administration, 9-11 commissioners and even certifiable liberal Rep. Jack Murtha, the Times revealed another top-secret program that had allowed the Treasury Department to track terrorists' financial transactions.

We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.

But now we've lost that ability – thanks to the New York Times.

People have gotten so inured to ridiculous behavior on the left that they are no longer capable of appropriate outrage when something truly treasonous happens. It is rather like Bill Clinton's rapes losing their impact because of the steady stream of perjury, obstruction of justice, treason, adultery and general sociopathic behavior coming from that administration.

This is a phenomenon known in the self-help community as "Clinton fatigue" (not to be confused with the lower back pain associated with excessive sexual activity known as "Clinton back").

In December 1972, Ronald Reagan called President Richard Nixon after watching Walter Cronkite's coverage of the Vietnam War on "CBS News," telling Nixon that "under World War II circumstances, the network would have been charged with treason."

No treason charges were brought, but we still have to hear liberals carrying on about Nixon's monstrous persecution of the press – which was so ungrateful of him, considering how nicely the press treated him.

Today, Times editors and columnists are doing what liberals always do when they're caught red-handed committing treason: They scream that they're being "intimidated" before hurling more invective. This is getting to be like listening to the Soviet Union complaining about the intimidation coming from Finland.

Liberals are always play-acting that they are under some monstrous attack from the right wing as they insouciantly place all Americans in danger. Their default position is umbrage, bordering on high dudgeon.

We've had to listen to them whine for 50 years about the brute Joe McCarthy, whose name liberals blackened while sheltering Soviet spies.

In 1985, Times columnist Anthony Lewis accused the Reagan administration of trying to "intimidate the press." Channeling Anthony Lewis this week, Frank Rich claims the Bush administration has "manufactured and milked this controversy to reboot its intimidation of the press, hoping journalists will pull punches in an election year."

Rich's evidence of the brutal crackdown on the press was the statement of San Francisco radio host Melanie Morgan – who, by the way, is part of the press – proposing the gas chamber for the editor of the Times if he were found guilty of treason, which happens to be the punishment prescribed by law. (Once again, Frank Rich finds himself in over his head when not writing about gay cowboy movies.)

I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution. A conviction for treason would be assured under any sensible legal system.

But however many Americans agree with Reagan on prosecuting treason, we can't even get President Bush to stop building up the liberal media by appearing on their low-rated TV shows – in the process, dissing TV hosts who support him and command much larger TV audiences. American consumers keep driving CNN's ratings down, and then Bush drives them back up again. So I wouldn't count on any treason charges emanating from this administration.

posted July 12, 2006 10:58 PM              

quote:

---

We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.

---

Hey here's a better idea...why dont you just drop bombs on ALL Muslims so you dont have to blame New York or the "Left" times anymore.

posted July 12, 2006 11:29 PM            

It was Bush who reached out to Muslims in the United States and warned that attacks against them or harassment would not be tolerated....immediately after 9/11.

"We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail."

So, are you attempting to suggest ALL Muslims are following the "religion of peace"?

Clinton did everything I've accused him of...and probably a lot more I don't know about. Commander Corruption also did everything Coulter has said he did and been defended by the radical left.

And why not? Commander Corruption displayed all the leftist virtues.

Adultery
Lying
Perjury
Obstruction of Justice
Subornation of Perjury
Treason
Rape
Sexual Assault
Bribery

posted July 12, 2006 11:38 PM              

Sure if Bush reached out to Muslims it was for publicity.

quote:

---

So, are you attempting to suggest ALL Muslims are following the "religion of peace"?

---

posted July 13, 2006 12:15 AM            

The Iraqis themselves seem to disagree with you and others here. They voted for representative government in Iraq. American Iraqis, both citizens and non citizens seem to disagree with you too. The voted in the Iraq elections too.

It seems to me you and others who share your views are against a free Iraq and freedom for the Iraqi people. Seems entirely sicko to me.

I don't notice you living under the boot of an Islamic dictatorship or any dictatorship. Why not?

My question was a simple one and yet, you demurred. Let me try again.

posted July 13, 2006 12:52 AM              

Continue to believe what you want to believe that people like me are against a free Iraq...if you think it works for your arguments...I personally think those are cheap shots though..

Well what Islamic dictatorship should I live under? Right now Im in Canada.

posted July 13, 2006 01:02 AM              

what the U.S. represents is the Under Dog..
overcoming all opposition..for freedom..

posted July 13, 2006 01:11 AM            

For your information, the majority of Iraqis don't want the United States to leave just yet. In fact, they fear we may leave too soon and before the country is able to defend itself against terrorists and those attempting to overthrow the new government.

Of course, almost if not all Iraqis want the US military to leave at some point. That's normal, reasonable, logical and necessary for Iraq to take total control of their own future...which is what we want too.

posted July 13, 2006 01:20 AM              

quote:

---

For your information, the majority of Iraqis don't want the United States to leave just yet.

---

And fyi, I dont find it hard to believe now that the Iraqis are living through a civil war they would feel this way. They're between a rock and a hard place.

Hehe I wouldnt mind living there...actually those are countries on my list of places to visit...and if I encountered problems if I lived there, then I would work to change them, not blow people who I dont agree with up.

posted July 13, 2006 09:03 AM              

Definitely a role model for the youth

posted July 13, 2006 10:52 AM            

Iraqis say US exit plan should await security

"When the Americans leave, the militias will eat us," predicts Khalil Mohammad, an air conditioning specialist in Baghdad. "The hands that came here to help us - the Americans - should finish their work and leave.... They should increase the power of the law, and should not leave completely but stay in bases."

"Most Iraqis want an end to the 127,000-strong US presence, which they consider an occupation. But they are concerned, too, that Iraqi forces, while growing in size and capability, still can't cope with the insurgency and sectarian killings that have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis."

"Before they leave, they should destroy the [sectarian] militias and make sure the security elements are strong," says the officer. "I don't want them to leave completely; they should stay in bases. But if they don't lower their numbers, we will pressure them to do so."

posted July 13, 2006 12:26 PM              

quote:

---

Poll results in late March from the US-funded International Republican Institute (IRI)

---

quote:

---

Among more than 2,800 Iraqis polled, withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq ranked a distant third, the top priority of just 9 percent of Iraqis.

---

Theres your problem right there. (Yet you guys refuse to do Iraqi body counts??). Who exactly are these guys conducting the poll...paid for by the Bush admin? And only 2800 out of how many millions? Who are you polling...I doubt it was a random survey. I highly doubt this survey reaches out the Iraqis that arent related to people working for the government and protected by the US forces already.

posted July 13, 2006 12:59 PM            

And, you spout your nonsense from the comfort and safety of a Western nation, safe and secure from any of the treatment Saddam meted out to his own citizens...among whom he killed about a million in his reign of terror in Iraq.

posted July 13, 2006 01:10 PM              

Who the hell is saying Iraqis dont want freedom?

The Iraqis want to live their own way...they dont want foreign invaders taking over their land and resources and their ideals...the Iraqi civilization is much older and has much richer traditions than the American one.

You spout nonsense...all this Saddam talk is BS. Your government and him were tight allies. Your government is guilty of providing him with the weapons by which he killed his people. Your government is guilty of getting the Kurdish people to start an uprising without the support and protection and getting them killed. Your government supported the killing of thousands of Iranians. You will allow other corrupt governments to do the dirty work for you and then you come in acting like heros.

quote:

---

The Iraqi people have spoken loudly and clearly for freedom. Why do you refuse to hear them?

---

posted July 15, 2006 01:45 AM              

Therefore, they are not to be listened to

posted July 18, 2006 01:31 PM            

Actual traitors writing for incipient traitors.

The Real Threat to the U.S.
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, July 18, 2006

Sometimes you have to just wonder if these liberal geniuses at The New York Times and elsewhere have the slightest scintilla of common sense, let alone goodwill.

At a time when the global conspiracy of Islamic terrorists to wage war against the civilized world is on display for all to see in Israel, The New York Times chooses, once again, to downplay - if not dismiss - that threat and, instead, demonize President Bush.

For several years the Democratic leadership and the mainstream media have been depicting President Bush as a power-hungry executive who "tramples on" the Constitution. But The New York Times, in its July 16 editorial, wrote, "It is only now, nearly five years after Sept. 11, that the full picture of the Bush administration's response to the terror attacks is becoming clear.

"Much of it, we can see now, had far less to do with fighting Osama bin Laden than with expanding presidential power."

Maybe Charlie Sheen has become a shadow member of the editorial board.

Sheen, you will recall, recently demonstrated he had his father's penchant for radical left-lunacy when he hinted that a U.S. government conspiracy was behind the 9/11 attacks. Twenty Muslim hijackers just couldn't have pulled off the attacks absent collusion with the government.

Well, go ahead and write Sheen off as a fringe leftist kook if you choose, but when the leading liberal editorial page of the nation is saying things just as maliciously preposterous, it's hard to describe far-left kooks as "fringe" anymore.

To say that Bush has been aggressive in the war on terror as a means to gaining more power for himself and not to defeat the terrorist threat is shockingly paranoid. And there's more.

The Times cites a piece by Jane Mayer in The New Yorker describing how this grandiose Bush scheme to usurp power from the other two branches of government "grew out of Vice President Dick Cheney's long and deeply held conviction that the real lesson of Watergate and the later Iran-contra debacle was that the president needed more power and that Congress and the courts should get out of the way. To a disturbing degree, the horror of 9/11 became an excuse to take up this cause behind the shield of Americans' deep insecurity."

Folks, if this doesn't give you insight into leftist thinking today and the obstacles we face among our own people in the war on terror, perhaps nothing will.

While you're trying to figure out whether it was the sinister Cheney or the hapless Bush who hatched this scheme to ratchet-up executive power, you might ponder what motive either has to expand the presidency, since Bush will be out in two years and Cheney has no presidential aspirations. As a gift to Hillary, perhaps?

The Times' Bush/Cheney paranoia is only exceeded by its misapprehension of the nature of the terrorist threat. What it really appears exercised about - beyond its sheer hatred for George Bush - is that we are treating terrorists as the enemy instead of criminal defendants who are entitled to the full spectrum of constitutional rights.

The Times is furious that President Bush eavesdrops on these people without a warrant, tracks their finances, and maintains the Geneva Conventions don't apply to them.

The editors wrote, "Undoing the Geneva Conventions would further endanger the life of every member of the American military who might ever be taken captive in the future." Excuse me, but how could anyone who understands the terrorist mindset believe that by showing kindness to terrorists they'll pose less of a danger to American soldiers captured in the future?

Terrorists don't negotiate, and they don't abide by rules or "conventions"; they torture and slaughter human beings for sport.

Our refusal to extend the Geneva Conventions to those not covered by them now and who themselves don't honor them will certainly not cause any civilized enemies we may encounter in the future to mistreat our troops.

Of course, the idea that we're going to have civilized enemies in the foreseeable future is pure fantasy.

The Times wants Congress to condemn President Bush for his "excesses," including his treatment of Gitmo detainees. It sees his refusal to extend the Geneva Conventions to the terrorists as part of his executive arrogance rather than a good faith, reasonable, and much more commonsensical view of the Conventions than that of the majority of the Supreme Court.

posted July 18, 2006 01:37 PM            

Perhaps in a few more years, these traitors will do America a favor and close their doors for good.

Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:24 a.m. EDT
New York Times Shrinks Pages, Cuts Jobs

The New York Times Co. plans to reduce the width of its flagship newspaper by an inch and a half and close a printing plant in Edison, N.J., resulting in the loss of about 250 jobs, the company announced Tuesday.

The reduction in width will bring the paper's size in line with what is becoming an industry standard. USA Today, the nation's largest-selling daily, already prints on the smaller size, and Dow Jones & Co.'s Wall Street Journal, the No. 2-selling daily, is moving to the smaller size early next year.

The changes at The New York Times will go into effect by the second quarter of 2008, the company said in a statement early Tuesday, and will save about $42 million a year. The job cuts account for about one-third of the Times' total production work force of 800.

The moves will consolidate New York area production of the Times newspaper at its newer production facility in the College Point section of the Queens borough of New York.

The Times said research has found that readers, particularly younger people and commuters, prefer the smaller size.

Rising costs for newsprint have prompted several newspaper publishers to take steps to reduce their consumption. The Journal has reduced the size of its European and Asian editions, and others are cutting back on the space devoted to stock tables.

Janet Robinson, CEO of The New York Times Co., said in a statement that the paper's editorial and design staffs are "exploring opportunities for adapting The Times's signature look and feel while also making the paper more user-friendly."

The size reduction alone would have meant a loss of 11 percent of the space devoted to news, but the newspaper plans to add pages to make up for about half of that loss, the Times reported in a story in Tuesday editions.

"That's a number that I think we can live with quite comfortably," Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, was quoted by the Times as saying. Keller said the 5 percent reduction in news space would require tighter editing and putting some news in digest form.

"It's painful to watch an industry retrench," Keller said. "But this is a much less painful way to go about assuring our economic survival than cutting staff or closing foreign bureaus or retrenching our investigative reporting or diluting the Washington bureau."

posted August 17, 2006 02:26 PM            

I believe that's only one facet of their decline. The NY Times has attacked Bush 24/7 since he was elected. They've published lying story after lying story and gotten caught in their own lies. They've revealed top secret security programs of the United States on their front pages and given aid, comfort and critical intelligence to our enemies.

In any event, a lying press outlet and/or a treasonous press outlet are ones the American people can well do without and it appears the NY Times is on a path to extinction or irrelevance...by self inflicted injuries.

Throwing Pinch Overboard
August 16th, 2006
Thomas Lifson

It has finally happened. The left is beginning to turn against New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., known far and wide as “Pinch.” It is simple to understand why: the New York Times is becoming a failing business under his stewardship, and the Left needs the NYT.

Faithful readers of The American Thinker have known this for over two years, as we have chronicled the journalistic and economic decline of the New York Times Company. We started warning investors that their money was at risk before the common stock lost half its value. We slogged through to SEC reports, pushed the numbers, and proved the shocking decline of the core business and major profit center of the company, its metropolitan print edition.

But it is one thing for websites “out there” beyond the Hudson to point out that Pinch is killing the family business, and quite another for the man dubbed “the King of New York Media” by The New Republic to point out that disaster looms ahead for members of the Ochs-Sulzberger clan, who cash dividend checks, and who also control the election for the board of directors. They might start thinking seriously about the attractiveness of professional management for the enterprise which sustains what must be a sophsiticated and pleasant lifestyle.

Michael Wolff, longtime writer for New York Magazine, took to the pages of no less than Vanity Fair, the glossy definition of au courant attitudes for New Yorkers of a certain economic and social status, to openly mock Pinch in what can only be described as a “hit-piece.”

What gives?

Why the Left is Starting to Hate Pinch

Anyone who understands the importance of the Times in setting the agenda for the entire media establishment realizes that without the Times to lead the way, lesser media properties in broadcasting and publishing might stray away from the left wing party line. Fox News has done better than any other media startup in recent memory by openly grazing in the conservative meadows. Despite intense derision by the Times and others in the Left establishment, it has prospered far more than they.

It simply would not do to have other media outlets beyond talk radio emulate this course. Virtually the entire media establishment, from home town dailies to network newscasts, takes its cues from the Times. Without a vibrant Times, ideological diversity int he media might proliferate.

Almost every ambitious newspaper reporter in the United States must at some point(s) fantasize about breaking a big story, getting noticed by the Times, and moving on up to what remains (for the moment) the pinnacle of prestige in American journalism. Reporters for lesser newspapers in Minneapolis, Montgomery or Missoula don’t really make much money, not compared to lawyers and investment bankers. They are mostly in their line of work for prestige, excitement, and the “ability to make a difference.” For such folk, toeing the line set by the Grey Lady helps them feel better about themselves, even if the call never comes. The Times’ expectations about what defines good journalism serve as a standard by which journalists measure themselves.

But the Times is steadily becoming damaged goods. Its prestige is not what it once was. Jayson Blair, Howell Raines, Judith Miller, and other mere employees have done plenty of damage. Just last weekend (no doubt too late for Wolff’s deadline), current executive editor Bill Keller made the jaw-dropping admission that he had lied to his readers about his decision not to publish a story on the NASA telephone intercept program before the 2004 presidential election, a matter of great concern to the Left. Even worse, Keller had a guilty conscience about the lie, but did not fess up until caught in an inconsistency and questioned by the paper’s public editor, Byron Calame.

The rest of the media has done an excellent job of ignoring this major scandal. The man who sets the standards for the standard-setting newspaper, on which they model their own professionalism, has admitted to being a liar. And covering it up.

“It was probably inelegant wording,” Mr. Keller said, who added later, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.”

While everyone has the experience of having words come out the wrong way, honorable men and women correct the mistake before a year has passed, especially when the mistake becomes the basis of a large public controversy. But not the executive editor of the Times. He is on the record as tolerating a lie which he knows to be a lie.

Most significantly, the only boss Bill Keller has, Pinch Sulzberger, has publicly said nothing. No firing, no public reprimand, no exile for the lying liar, to use Al Franken’s phrase. So the company is now on the record as regarding lying as tolerable, maybe even normal.

This is not the way to burnish a brand name.

For the Left’s own reasons, it is becoming imperative to throw Pinch overboard, and let a grown-up try to salvage what’s left.

The Future of the Times

Its still-lustrous if scuffed brand name is increasingly all the New York Times has left. The newsprint product is being milked to death. Unless a more capable management is able to figure out a way to capitalize on the brand than Pinch’s sorry efforts (have you ever watched the “Discovery Times Channel”? Be honest), time is running out for the Times. Diversification is pretty much a disaster.

Sparing his readers the gory details of the business decline of the New York Times Company, Wolff cuts to the chase: the paper version of the Times is dying, and there is so far no evident way for the expensive-to-produce content to be viable as an internet publication. His readers are warned that there will be a future without their daily dose of conventional Left wisdom. He goes so far as to predict it will be

“...just another newspaper company coming to its natural end….

“And, anyway, how do you exactly define “end”? You mean NO New York Times? Nada? Darkness?

“Well, yes, in effect.”

Vanity Fair readers are now informed that their favorite newspaper is doomed under the helmsmanship of Pinch. Which is going to make it awkward for him when he goes to parties. Not to mention all the whispers and gossip family members will have to endure. Pinch is now an official Upper East Side laughingstock.

There are options for the family. Wolff outlines what he sees happening:

The fear in the newsroom is that the first thing to be given up will be bodies—fire enough people and earnings improve and stock creeps up and that takes immediate pressure off management. (It’s already begun: “There’s no money here,” hissed a reporter to me recently in what had been a little gossip about expense accounts.)

But if that’s not enough—and it never is enough—then what’s next is more independent board members, followed by little changes in the nature of control, and then asset sales, and lots of secret meetings among family members on the subject of what to do about Arthur, and then a plan afoot to take the title of publisher from him, and on and on … until … the powers that be face the dreadful discrepancy between the declining fortunes of business as usual and a more probable upside of dismantling, selling, and letting the market have its certain way.

He’s probably right. But left unspoken is the possibility that the Family will, thanks to his observations, be mobilized to fend off this disaster, and gently (or not) relieve Pinch of his post so that someone else can at least prolong the survival of the Times and its brand name.

That is certainly what the Left would prefer, as things now stand.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5768

posted September 13, 2006 02:16 PM            

Cashing out is the right description for what's going on at the Times.

New York Times selling TV stations
NEW YORK, Sept. 13 (UPI)

The New York Times Co. will sell its Broadcast Media Group, which includes nine network-affiliated television stations and their related properties.

"We believe a divestiture would allow us to sharpen our focus on developing our newspaper and rapidly growing digital businesses, and the synergies between them, thereby increasing the value of our company for our shareholders," said Janet L. Robinson, the company's chief executive officer.

Last year, the Broadcast Media Group accounted for about 4 percent of company revenues. In 2006, the company expects the group will have revenues of some $150 million and operating profit of about $33 million. Depreciation and amortization is expected to be around $10 million for the year.