NYT ULTRA HYPOCRITES The Truth Doesnot Matter

Editorial

  OMG hypocrites the New York Times editorial boards got a doozy this morning calling Donald Trump an outright liar but silence on Hillary Clinton. Their lead OPED this morning "Donald Trump’s Latest Birther Lie" is golden.
 It begins "The midday bulletin arrived as another bizarre moment in the absurdist presidential campaign of Donald Trump: News Alert: Trump admits Obama was born in the United States.

What? It read like some variation on “Trump Finds the Earth No Longer Flat.” But no, Mr. Trump, the ultimate mountebank, was at it again, altering but not abandoning the Big Lie campaign that first made him the darling of wing nuts and racists five years ago: his vicious insistence that President Obama was not born a legitimate American citizen."
 O wait Hillary Clinton isn't absurd though with all her bullshit lies. Wing nuts and racists.I never cared if Obama was a citizen or not he still sucks.
 The crap goes on "Did he apologize to Mr. Obama and the American people for the political poison he spread for so long? Of course not. Being Mr. Trump, he instead substituted a lie for a lie. He falsely accused Hillary Clinton of starting the birther myth, then further claimed he had nobly “finished” it off by badgering the White House for proof that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, not Africa.

The standard words for campaign mishaps — “flip-flop,” “retreat,” “walk-back” — simply do not apply to this candidate’s spirals through unreality.

“Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy,” Mr. Trump maintained with a straight face, speaking in Washington to a crowd of friendly military veterans. “I finished it.” Then he conceded the truth, an act that must have felt very peculiar to him: “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”

 Ok NYT then you apologize to all of the American people for you guys starting the liberal biases that are out there oh I hear crickets chirping.

 It finally ends "Not quite period, much as Trump strategists now wish it were. Mr. Trump is probably hoping to reassure voters that he is edging into the mainstream, that he is not just the reckless, cynical bully of the Republican primaries. But the birther lies cling to him as tightly as his nativist hallucinators.The facts — because facts still matter — are that Mr. Trump continued to heap doubt on President Obama’s birth certificate even after it was released, slyly retweeting others’ contentions that it was a fake and a “computer generated forgery.”After he tried to pin the birther smear on her, Mrs. Clinton called it what it is: an “outrageous lie” intended to “delegitimize our first black president.” Mr. Trump delegitimized his own candidacy instead.
 Hey NYT was Trump a racist when he gave $$$ to Jesse Jacksons Rainbow Coalition or to the NAACP? Oh by the way those are the facts NYT so get your heads out of your collective asses.

NYT On North Korean Nukes

Editorial

  We know recently as this past week North Korea has yet again tested another Nuclear weapon as reported. A New York Times editorial this morning puts the blame directly on the Communist Chinese government.

  I know that some of that blame could be pointed to the current occupier of the White House Barack Obama for not having the guts to stand up as have other Democrat Presidents have done in dealing with the Commies in the past.

 A piece from the NYT editorial board once again is the rubbish that it always is "North Korea’s Nuclear Enabler" mention the Communist party in China but not at the Obama administration.

 It begins "No country has more influence over the rogue state of North Korea than China, which provides it with food, fuel and access to vital trade routes. Yet when North Korea conducted its fifth and most powerful nuclear weapons test on Friday — underscoring once again the failure of international efforts to halt the nuclear program — Beijing’s response amounted to pap.

In a statement, the Chinese foreign ministry expressed “strong opposition” to the test and reaffirmed its commitment to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. The foreign minister urged North Korea to “stop escalating” its provocative behavior and abide by United Nations resolutions that forbid nuclear tests.Although China six months ago gave critical support for the toughest nuclear-related economic sanctions ever imposed on North Korea by the United Nations Security Council, recent reports from the border region show that trade continues and may even be booming because China has left open big loopholes. Researchers have found that the North’s ability to procure components for its weapons program has actually improved.

  Yeah real tough lmao. Where's America's response nothing from Obama.
 Continues "Beijing has long resisted severe sanctions, fearing they could lead to the collapse of the North and to a unified Korean Peninsula dominated by South Korea, an American ally. Some experts have suggested that Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, conducted the test because he had no reason to fear Chinese retaliation.

So now China’s ambivalence has led to this crisis: North Korea has enough fissile material for perhaps as many as 21 nuclear bombs and, after a flurry of missile tests, is approaching the day when it can produce a warhead small enough to fit on a missile and threaten the United States as well as American allies in the region.

With each advance of the North’s nuclear capability, the solution to the threat gets harder and more elusive. For a long time, it was widely assumed that North Korea pursued nuclear weapons to ensure its survival as a state. Now, some experts suspect that Mr. Kim is preparing to fight and win a limited nuclear war.

It was because of this growing threat that the United States and South Korea agreed recently to deploy an American-made advanced missile defense system in South Korea to protect against a North Korean attack. That decision, which has angered China, makes it harder for Americans and the Chinese to cooperate on North Korea.

  Keep blaming China no finger at Obama.

  It ends "On Friday, President Obama called for vigorous implementation of existing sanctions and the imposition of new ones. It’s hard to be optimistic. Success will depend on China’s cooperation in cutting off trade to the North. That is unlikely, even though it should be obvious to Beijing that allowing North Korea’s nuclear program to continue is a real threat to China and its interests in the region. The United States has its own options, like working with allies to block shipping in and out of North Korea or cutting off access to banks, but such steps would pose their own risks.

Beyond sanctions, any lasting solution will almost certainly require some kind of negotiations, though Republicans in Congress are certain to resist such a move. The Kim government issued a statement in July that some viewed as an overture for starting talks. Most experts say the only realistic goal at this point is a halt to the North’s nuclear and missile testing, not an abandonment of the entire program. Since far too little has been done to contain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions in the past decade, this accelerating threat will require the urgent attention of Mr. Obama’s successor.

  Yes Donald Trump no way Hillary Clinton

NYT Columnist Krugman Still Whining

Opinion/Editorial Columnist

 I have the chance this morning in a special Labor Day post to blog about one of the most leftist liberal columnists at the New York Times Paul Krugman with his garbage "Hillary Clinton Gets Gored" is the title.

 It starts "Americans of a certain age who follow politics and policy closely still have vivid memories of the 2000 election — bad memories, and not just because the man who lost the popular vote somehow ended up in office. For the campaign leading up to that end game was nightmarish too.

You see, one candidate, George W. Bush, was dishonest in a way that was unprecedented in U.S. politics. Most notably, he proposed big tax cuts for the rich while insisting, in raw denial of arithmetic, that they were targeted for the middle class. These campaign lies presaged what would happen during his administration — an administration that, let us not forget, took America to war on false pretenses.

Yet throughout the campaign most media coverage gave the impression that Mr. Bush was a bluff, straightforward guy, while portraying Al Gore — whose policy proposals added up, and whose critiques of the Bush plan were completely accurate — as slippery and dishonest. Mr. Gore’s mendacity was supposedly demonstrated by trivial anecdotes, none significant, some of them simply false. No, he never claimed to have invented the internet. But the image stuck.

 Bad memories for you Krugman not for most of us you idiot. Still stuck on blame Bush all the time.

 It goes on "And right now I and many others have the sick, sinking feeling that it’s happening again.

True, there aren’t many efforts to pretend that Donald Trump is a paragon of honesty. But it’s hard to escape the impression that he’s being graded on a curve. If he manages to read from a TelePrompter without going off script, he’s being presidential. If he seems to suggest that he wouldn’t round up all 11 million undocumented immigrants right away, he’s moving into the mainstream. And many of his multiple scandals, like what appear to be clear payoffs to state attorneys general to back off investigating Trump University, get remarkably little attention.

Meanwhile, we have the presumption that anything Hillary Clinton does must be corrupt, most spectacularly illustrated by the increasingly bizarre coverage of the Clinton Foundation.

Step back for a moment, and think about what that foundation is about. When Bill Clinton left office, he was a popular, globally respected figure. What should he have done with that reputation? Raising large sums for a charity that saves the lives of poor children sounds like a pretty reasonable, virtuous course of action. And the Clinton Foundation is, by all accounts, a big force for good in the world. For example, Charity Watch, an independent watchdog, gives it an “A” rating — better than the American Red Cross.

Now, any operation that raises and spends billions of dollars creates the potential for conflicts of interest. You could imagine the Clintons using the foundation as a slush fund to reward their friends, or, alternatively, Mrs. Clinton using her positions in public office to reward donors. So it was right and appropriate to investigate the foundation’s operations to see if there were any improper quid pro quos. As reporters like to say, the sheer size of the foundation “raises questions.”

  Good we don't want Hillary Clinton as President.

 It ends "But nobody seems willing to accept the answers to those questions, which are, very clearly, “no.”Consider the big Associated Press report suggesting that Mrs. Clinton’s meetings with foundation donors while secretary of state indicate “her possible ethics challenges if elected president.” Given the tone of the report, you might have expected to read about meetings with, say, brutal foreign dictators or corporate fat cats facing indictment, followed by questionable actions on their behalf.

But the prime example The A.P. actually offered was of Mrs. Clinton meeting with Muhammad Yunus, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize who also happens to be a longtime personal friend. If that was the best the investigation could come up with, there was nothing there.

So I would urge journalists to ask whether they are reporting facts or simply engaging in innuendo, and urge the public to read with a critical eye. If reports about a candidate talk about how something “raises questions,” creates “shadows,” or anything similar, be aware that these are all too often weasel words used to create the impression of wrongdoing out of thin air.

And here’s a pro tip: the best ways to judge a candidate’s character are to look at what he or she has actually done, and what policies he or she is proposing. Mr. Trump’s record of bilking students, stiffing contractors and more is a good indicator of how he’d act as president; Mrs. Clinton’s speaking style and body language aren’t. George W. Bush’s policy lies gave me a much better handle on who he was than all the up-close-and-personal reporting of 2000, and the contrast between Mr. Trump’s policy incoherence and Mrs. Clinton’s carefulness speaks volumes today.

In other words, focus on the facts. America and the world can’t afford another election tipped by innuendo.

 There was bad things going on while Clinton was Secretary Of State that should prevent her from not only running for President she shouldnot be the Democrat Nominee

NYT Columnist Kristof"s Take On Religion

Opinion/Editorial Columnist

 Here is Nicolas Kristof with a piece on religion which he has no idea about what he's writing about as is the case with everyone from the New York Times editorial board to their lame ass OPED writers.

 His piece of crap entitled "What Religion Would Jesus Belong To?" is a stupid question never mind writing a piece about it.

 It begins "ONE puzzle of the world is that religions often don’t resemble their founders.

Jesus never mentioned gays or abortion but focused on the sick and the poor, yet some Christian leaders have prospered by demonizing gays. Muhammad raised the status of women in his time, yet today some Islamic clerics bar women from driving, or cite religion as a reason to hack off the genitals of young girls. Buddha presumably would be aghast at the apartheid imposed on the Rohingya minority by Buddhists in Myanmar.

“Our religions often stand for the very opposite of what their founders stood for,” notes Brian D. McLaren, a former pastor, in a provocative and powerful new book, “The Great Spiritual Migration.”

  Kristof because God is against homosexuality it says so in the Holy Bible if you bothered to do your research. Oh wait that's right liberals demonize the bible speaking of demonizing things.

 It goes on "Founders are typically bold and charismatic visionaries who inspire with their moral imagination, while their teachings sometimes evolve into ingrown, risk-averse bureaucracies obsessed with money and power. That tension is especially pronounced with Christianity, because Jesus was a radical who challenged the establishment, while Christianity has been so successful that in much of the world it is the establishment.

“No wonder more and more of us who are Christians by birth, by choice, or both find ourselves shaking our heads and asking, ‘What happened to Christianity?’” McLaren writes. “We feel as if our founder has been kidnapped and held hostage by extremists. His captors parade him in front of cameras to say, under duress, things he obviously doesn’t believe. As their blank-faced puppet, he often comes across as anti-poor, anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-intellectual, anti-immigrant and anti-science. That’s not the Jesus we met in the Gospels!”

 Moral imagination you have a nerve Kristof when it comes to a moral compass. You are a liberal asshole.

 Kristof keeps on "This argument unfolds against a backdrop of religious ferment. The West has rapidly become more secular, with the “nones” — the religiously nonaffiliated, including atheists as well as those who feel spiritual but don’t identify with a particular religion — accounting for almost one-fourth of Americans today. The share is rising quickly: Among millennials, more than one-third are nones.

The rise of the nones seems to have been accompanied by a decline in public interest in doctrine. “One of the most religious countries on earth,” Stephen Prothero says in his book “Religious Literacy,” referring to the U.S., “is also a nation of religious illiterates.”

Only half of American Christians can name the four Gospels, only 41 percent are familiar with Job, and barely half of American Catholics understand Catholic teaching about the eucharist. Yet if Americans suspect that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife, or wonder if the epistles were female apostles, then maybe the solution is to fret less about doctrines and more about actions.

“What would it mean for Christians to rediscover their faith not as a problematic system of beliefs but as a just and generous way of life, rooted in contemplation and expressed in compassion?” McLaren asks in “The Great Spiritual Migration.” “Could Christians migrate from defining their faith as a system of beliefs to expressing it as a loving way of life?”

That would be a migration away from religious bureaucracy and back to the moral vision of the founder, and it would be an enormous challenge. But religion can and does migrate.

“Because I grew up in a very conservative Christian context, we were always warned about changing the essential message,” McLaren told me. “But at the same time, we often missed how much actually had changed over time.” Christianity at times approved of burning witches and massacring heretics; thank goodness it has evolved!

As society has modernized and people have grown more skeptical of accounts of virgin birth or resurrection, one response has been to retreat from religion. Yet there’s also a deep impulse for spiritual connections.

McLaren advises worrying less about whether biblical miracles are literally true and thinking more about their meaning: If Jesus is said to have healed a leper, put aside the question of whether this actually happened and focus on his outreach to the most stigmatized of outcasts.

It is not just Christianity, of course, that is grappling with these questions. Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said that he sees a desire for a social justice mission inspired and balanced by faith traditions.

“That’s where I see our path,” Jacobs said. “People have seen ritual as an obsession for the religious community, and they haven’t seen the courage and commitment to shaping a more just and compassionate world.”

If certain religious services were less about preening about one’s own virtue or pointing fingers at somebody else’s iniquity and more about tackling human needs around us, this would be a better world — and surely Jesus would applaud as well.

This may seem an unusual column for me to write, for I’m not a particularly religious Christian. But I do see religious faith as one of the most important forces, for good and ill, and I am inspired by the efforts of the faithful who run soup kitchens and homeless shelters.

Perhaps unfairly, the pompous hypocrites get the headlines and often shape public attitudes about religion, but there’s more to the picture. Remember that on average religious Americans donate far more to charity and volunteer more than secular Americans do.

It is not the bureaucracy that inspires me, or doctrine, or ancient rituals, or even the most glorious cathedral, temple or mosque, but rather a Catholic missionary doctor in Sudan treating bomb victims, an evangelical physician achieving the impossible in rural Angola, a rabbi battling for Palestinians’ human rights — they fill me with an almost holy sense of awe. Now, that’s religion.

 If that's religion to you liberals then Satan yes the very devil is your God

NYT's David Brooks Is A Fool

Opinion/Editorial Columnist

 I finally have a chance to comment and blog on David Brooks the so called Conservative at the New York Times he is anything but that. going to comment on his piece this morning entitled "Identity Politics Run Amok."
 It begins "Once, I seem to recall, we had philosophical and ideological differences. Once, politics was a debate between liberals and conservatives, between different views of government, different views on values and America’s role in the world.

But this year, it seems, everything has been stripped down to the bone. Politics is dividing along crude identity lines — along race and class. Are you a native-born white or are you an outsider? Are you one of the people or one of the elites?

Politics is no longer about argument or discussion; it’s about trying to put your opponents into the box of the untouchables.

Donald Trump didn’t invent this game, but he embodies it. His advisers tried to dress him up on Wednesday afternoon as some sort of mature summiteer. But he just can’t be phony."

 No Brooks you are the phony trying to be conservative but a lying liberal.

 It goes on "By his evening immigration speech he’d returned to the class and race tropes that have defined his campaign: that the American government is in the grips of a rich oligarchy that distorts everything for its benefit; that the American people are besieged by foreigners, who take their jobs and threaten their lives.

It’s not that these two ideas are completely wrong. The rich do have more influence. There are indeed some foreigners who seek to harm us. It is just that Trump (like other race and class warriors) takes these kernels of truth and grows them into a lie.

Trump argues that immigration has sown chaos across middle-class neighborhoods. This is false. Research suggests that the recent surge in immigration has made America’s streets safer. That’s because foreign-born men are very unlikely to commit violent crime.

According to one study, only 2 or 3 percent of Mexican-, Guatemalan- or Salvadoran-born men without a high school degree end up incarcerated, compared with 11 percent of their American-born counterparts."

  An out right lie Brooks what I highlighted in red.

 It continues "Trump argues that the flood of immigrants is taking jobs away from unskilled native workers. But this is mainly false, too. There’s an intricate debate among economists about this, but if you survey the whole literature on the subject you find that most research shows immigration has very little effect on native wage or unemployment levels.

That’s because immigrants flow into different types of unskilled jobs. Unskilled immigrants tend to become maids, cooks and farm workers — jobs that require less English. Unskilled natives tend to become cashiers and drivers. If immigrants are driving down wages, it is mostly those of other immigrants.

Trump claims the rich benefit from immigration while everyone else suffers. Doctors get cheap nannies, everyone else gets the shaft.

This is false, too. The fact is, a vast majority of Americans benefit. A study by John McLaren of U.Va. and Gihoon Hong of Indiana University found that each new immigrant produced about 1.2 new jobs, because immigrants are producers and consumers and increase overall economic activity.

A report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that immigrants accounted for 28 percent of all new small businesses in 2011. Between 2006 and 2012, over 40 percent of tech start-ups in Silicon Valley had at least one foreign-born founder.

The cities that are doing best economically work hard to attract new immigrants because the benefits are widely shared. As Ted Hesson points out in The Atlantic, New York, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles account for about 20 percent of America’s economic output, and in those places, immigrants can make up as much as 44 percent of the total labor supply.

Identity politics distorts politics in two ways. First, it is Manichaean. It cleanly divides the world into opposing forces of light and darkness. You are a worker or an elite. You are American or foreigner.

  Another lie by Brooks once again highlighted in red.

It ends "Seeing this way is understandable if you are scared, but it is also a sign of intellectual laziness. The reality is that people can’t be reduced to a single story. An issue as complex as immigration can’t be reduced to a cartoon. It is simultaneously true that immigration fuels American dynamism and that the mixture of mass unskilled immigration and the high-tech economy threatens to create a permanent underclass.

Second and most important, identity politics is inherently the politics of division. But on most issues — whether it is immigration or the economy or national security — we rise and fall together. Immigration, even a reasonable amount of illegal immigration, helps a vast majority of Americans. An economy that grows at 3 percent would help all Americans.Identity politics, as practiced by Trump, but also by others on the left and the right, distracts from the reality that we are one nation. It corrodes the sense of solidarity. It breeds suspicion, cynicism and distrust.

Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life."

  Intellectual laziness is why you have been an oped columnist for the NYT