The Stupid. It Burns.


Donald Trump has done more to hobble Vladimir Putin’s ability to act on the world stage than any of his predecessors. For example, Trump’s favorable treatment of fracking has kept the prices of oil and natural gas down, devastating Russia’s income as an oil exporter and severely truncating Putin’s cash flow. It’s the Democrats who espouse policies which are more favorable to Russia’s interests.

So the New York Times ran this yesterday—

That “warning” was supposedly contained in an intelligence briefing. If our intelligence agencies really think that Vladimir Putin would act so stupidly against his own interests as to try to interfere in the 2020 election in Trump’s favor, then it’s time for a top-to-bottom review of what’s going on in Spookville. Trump’s appointment of Richard Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence looks like a pretty good move.

Note to the Times: The Russian Collusion Hoax failed last year.

Don’t Know Much About History


The New York Times continues to misrepresent historical facts. Its recent tenth anniversary retrospective of the Tea Party movement is yet another example of woke revisionism. The Times portrays the Tea Party as raaaaacist, and David Harsanyi has a post over at The Federalist taking them to task for their shoddy reporting.

In the first draft of this piece, I joked that The New York Times might add a line about Tea Party “racism” before the day was over to placate the Twitter mob. They did it before I could even publish. But it doesn’t change the fact that there’s no evidence that a “good deal”—or any substantial deal, for that matter—of the Tea Party’s popularity was propelled by racism.

Read the whole thing.

Don’t Know Much About History


Erick Erickson has a post over at The Resurgent fact checking The New York Times‘ 1619 Project, a potentially worthwhile endeavor designed to educate Americans about slavery and the role it has played in the new world. However, the newspaper has turned the project over to a group of opinion writers who appear more interested in stoking and fueling racial grievances than truthfully exploring the nation’s history.

The essay Erickson fact checks begins by getting key details of 17th-century history wrong.

The Times has set about inserting race into everything and demanding we all see race in everything. 1619 is our “true founding.” No, actually, historically that is not true in any way shape or form.

In fact, the House of Burgesses convened in Jamestown, Virginia on July 30, 1619, before any African had set foot on the North American continent. The Mayflower pilgrims landed in New England in 1620, completely separated from those in Jamestown, with different goals, views, values, and priorities. It is also worth noting that white indentured servants outnumbered slaves and arrived before slaves. Quibble all you want with the distinctions, but in 1619 they were roughly treated the same — terribly on all counts.

To make it all about slavery is to ignore that there were already Europeans in North America before the first slave arrived and there were Europeans arriving in America in different locations quite apart from where slavery was. For a project that claims truth for itself, it is deeply untrue to truth and reality. The pilgrims in Massachusetts in 1620 were not exactly a group of slave holders as they were setting up shop, forming modes of government, and adopting private property and capitalist meta-structures to avoid failures from collective farming.

In fact, in 1623, still well before slavery made it into pilgrim settlements, the Plymouth Plantation abandoned communal property rights in favor of private property rights and a system of free enterprise.

The Times‘ essay’s misrepresentation of history continues to the present era, falsely claiming, for example, that the Republicans took control of the Senate in 2010.

Americans, particularly white Americans, need to learn more about slavery in the United States. But doing so on the premise that the United States itself is flawed and illegitimate is not the way to do it. Sadly, that’s what so much of the Times’ coverage amounts to.

If the nation is founded on slavery and slavery is woven into the very fabric of our society, then our society is illegitimate. The only way to overcome it is to overturn it. That would take revolution. This is the path the New York Times goes down. Once it lights this fire, it will not be able to control it. But it wants to strike the match anyway.

Read the whole thing.

The New York Times and Defamation


Before I get started on this post, I should note that I have been personally sued for defamation seven times because of what I have written on this blog. I’ve won all of those cases because what I’d written was true. I believe there should be very few exceptions to the protection of truthful speech. I also believe that we all should be free to state our opinions. Knowing, malicious lies don’t deserve such protection.

Having said that, I’d like to take note of the fact that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reversed a trial court’s dismissal of Sarah Palin’s defamation suit against the New York Times. The dismissal was on procedural grounds, and John HInderaker has a good explanation of that at PowerLine. The Second Circuit also found Palin had stated her claim with sufficient plausibility that the case should proceed to the discovery phase.

Palin claims that a Times editorial contained a false statement connecting her to 2012 shooting of Gabby Gifford. Palin lawsuit notes the editor who wrote the allegedly defamatory piece is the brother of a politician who Gifford had endorsed and who was opposed by Palin. (In fact, Palin had endorsed the opponent.) The editor had testified that he didn’t know that the Times‘ previous reporting has shown no connection between Palin and the shooter. OTOH, it’s not unreasonable to suspect that the editor might have a personal grudge against Palin because of her political opposition to his brother, and that led him to maliciously making a false statement in the editorial.

So Palin v. New York Times will proceed to discovery. This could be interesting.

Math and Facts are Harder


I’m sure Paul Krugman thinks he made a morally justifiable argument in his recent NYT article supporting ¡Ocasio! She Guevara’s proposed higher tax rates, but he’s dead wrong on both the facts and his math. He wrote,

The controversy of the moment involves AOC’s advocacy of a tax rate of 70-80 percent on very high incomes, which is obviously crazy, right? I mean, who thinks that makes sense? … And it’s a policy nobody has ever implemented, aside from … the United States, for 35 years after World War II — including the most successful period of economic growth in our history.

It’s a fact that World War II ended in 1945. You can look it up.

It’s also a fact that the top U. S. personal income tax rates were cut from 70 percent to 50 percent in 1964. Paul Krugman could have looked that up in the NYT’s archives.

1964 – 1945 = 19 and 19 < 35.

Also, the peak period of post WWII economic growth in America was after that tax cut, a fact that Krugman would have also found if he researched his paper's own archives.

Space prohibits a full discussion of the impact of the tax cut, but current data show that inflation-adjusted G.D.P. increased 5.8 percent in 1964 after a 4.4 percent rise in 1963. Growth improved to 6.5 percent in 1965 and 6.6 percent in 1966. These were the three best back-to-back years for economic growth in the postwar era, and economists generally credit the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut for much of it.

Sometimes Truth just refuses to fit The Narrative.

UPDATE—To be fair to Paul Krugman, the Kennedy/Johnson tax cut became law just before his 11th birthday, so he probably has no real memory of the economic conditions he was writing about.

I’m Not Making This Up, You Know


One of the points made in the defense of Brett Kavanaugh has been the fact that people who engage in the sort of conduct alleged against him are usually serial offenders, and no other women had stepped forward. Indeed, every other woman who knew Kavanaugh and who did step forward spoken in his favor, until the last minute. The New Yorker has now published a claim that Brett Kavauagh exposed himself to a girl while he was a student at Yale. This second story was also being worked by several of the usual suspects in the Main Stream Media, and none of them, including The New Yorker, have been able to been able to find a witness to confirm the story. In fact, the New York Times has reported that none the potential witnesses they have interviewed could corroborate the story. This tale appears to be even flimsier than the Ford accusation, but that has not prevented Senator Feinstein from asking that the Ford/Kavanaugh hearing finally scheduled for Thursday be postponed until this new claim can be investigated by the FBI.

And Michael Avenatti has come out from under his rock, saying he represents a woman with “credible information about Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge.”

It’s unfortunate, it’s hysterical, it’s panic stricken, but Democrats are proceeding as I have foreseen.

UPDATE—My podcasting partner Stacy McCain comments here.

Sarah Jeong, The New York Times, and Twitter


Alinsky’s Rule 4 state:

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

I’ve rather enjoyed the brouhaha over Sarah Jeong’s Twitter history and her hiring by the NYT. As noted by other commenters, the Times knew about her tweets when they hired her, and they brought on board anyway. Indeed, it appears that her tweets were not considered a bug but a feature. So if she’s a racist, one can assume that she’s the good kind of racist of which the NYT approves.

UPDATE—This is from a 2016 piece about the alt-right.

True bigotry is often excused as nothing more than crude humor or nihilistic trolling … To them, it’s humor. To everyone else, it’s hate.

New York Times

Stormy [Political] Weather


Over at PowerLine, John Hinderacker has a piece up examining the Democratic Party’s New York Times‘ coverage of Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. After noting that the NYT has not shown any previous interest in the pre-public-life dalliances of such presidents as John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama, he notes

And for the Times to accuse our president of “sexual perversion,” on the basis of absolutely zero evidence, is a low blow even by the standards of the Democratic Party press. (On a positive note, it is good to see that the Times thinks there still is such a thing as sexual perversion. That seems like an old-fashioned notion in today’s era of “let a thousand gender identities bloom.”)

The left-wing press is working overtime today to make the 12-year-old Stormy Daniels story into news. Why? … The Democratic Party is trying to distract voters from [Trump’s] accomplishments with irrelevant stories about a former porn star.

Read the whole thing.

I’m Not Making This Up, You Know


Jim Rutenberg, the “Mediator” at the New York Times, has an opinion piece up expressing concern over the challenge of reporting objectively on Donald Trump.

It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

Walter Duranty was unavailable for comment. Read the whole thing.

Politics Makes Strange Bedfellows


Clinton CashPolitico reports that Fox News and the New York Times have both cut exclusive deals for early access to the anti-Hillary research to be published in Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich by Peter Schweizer. The book is due out on 5 May and can be pre-ordered here.

False Narratives


Roger Kimball has a piece up at PJ Media analyzing the spin in a New York Times story about the Democrats’ panic over the coming midterm elections and why their candidates are trying to distance themselves from an unpopular president.

I guess the New York Times needs something more, because according to them, Obama is unpopular not because he has failed but because the Republicans have somehow enveloped him in a “narrative of failure.” Yes, that’s right, folks, the evil Republicans called Obama’s failures, er, failures, and by so doing they managed to substitute a fiction (that’s what the Times means by “narrative”) for the truth.

Read the whole thing.

You know, there’s something about having truthful reporting described as a “false narrative” that seems awfully familiar

America Held Hostage: Obamacare Day 4


Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law

That’s a headline from a New York Times story with this opening paragraph:

A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times.

Of course, the Times goes on to blame the problem not on the inherent defects of the law but on the actions of those evil Republicans who control the governments of the states where those poor blacks and single mothers live.

Let it burn.

Rush, NYT, and Advertisers


Dan Riehl has a post up looking at the nonsense being floated by some on the left forecasting the demise of right wing talk radio. One reason cited by those hopeful lefties is that Rush Limbaugh might change syndicators. They note that Cumulus, the company that syndicates his show, is losing money, and their spin is that the Rush v. Sandra Fluke tiff spooked too many advertisers. The possibility that Cumulus might have management problems is ignored.

So while drinking my second cup of coffee this morning, I pondered this thought—if it’s only right wing media that’s seeing a slow down in ad revenue during a funky economy, why did the New York Times see its ad sales drop 11 percent and earning fall over 90 percent during the first quarter this year?