Here is what the New York Times published about their criminal activity by giving MoveOn.com a break on their full page ad: [1]

MoveOn.org said yesterday that it paid The New York Times $77,508 after the newspaper revealed that its advertising department had undercharged the organization for an advertisement that ran two weeks ago and proved controversial.

Here, MoveOn and the NYT try to avoid a federal crime by abrogating a payment in kind to a political client in violation of federal election law. Pinch Sulzberger and his Pinch Puddles show bias and unprofessional conduct all the time. [2] This is equivalent to a mugger hammering out the brains some some old lady for her welfare check and then returning the stolen hammer to the hardware store. Liberal logic in full acceleration.

The newspaper had maintained that it charged MoveOn the same standby rate of $64,575 that it charges all advocacy groups for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that can run anytime in a seven-day window. But the newspapers spokeswoman, Catherine Mathis, was quoted Sunday by The Timess public editor, Clark Hoyt, as saying an advertising sales representative had made a mistake in granting the discount.

A mistake? Is it a mistake that the picture of Walter Duranty shines down on  the boorish faces of the NYT staff with his Pulitzer Prize from his exalted Marxist position high on the wall? Duranty was a disgusting liar and parasite and darling of the NYT who struggled to show Uncle Joe Stalin in his best light with lies if necessary. They did the same thing for our enemies in Viet Nam. Anything to support our enemies is the hidden motto of the NYT.

The sales representative should have charged $142,083, she said, because MoveOn wanted the advertisement to run on a specific day Monday, Sept. 10 and was therefore not entitled to the standby rate.

Mr. Hoyt had concluded in his column that the advertisement appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.

 

In response, Ms. Mathis said: The public editor serves as the readers representative; his opinions and conclusions are his own. The Times believes the ad was within our acceptability guidelines.

 

So, this was not  a personal attack???

She said transparency was difficult for newspapers as they faced financial pressures. The changes in advertising rates because of the Internet make transparency less likely and less possible, she said. The result, she said, is that the people who mistrust journalism are going to assign bias as the motive for the discount to MoveOn, even though news and advertising departments are separate.

 The American Conservative Union has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against both The Times and MoveOn. It said The Times violated federal rules because corporations cannot make campaign donations. It said MoveOns acceptance of the rate was a violation because the contribution was over the legal limit.

 We know that the New York Times is a crude propaganda machine that resembles some instrument that grinds and puts out filtered news in the manner that a sausage machine spurts out brats.

Among the critics has been the American Spectator, which wrote: The New York Times in the past has rejected advocacy ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [Editorial note by rycK: This has been disputed and denied by S.B.V.  see footnote: [3]] , as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same special advocacy, stand by rates.[4]

 

Mr. Jespersen said in the telephone interview that the advertising department had rejected a right-to-life ad because it contained an illustration that did not meet the papers standards of taste. It had nothing to do with the message of the group, he said.

Are we to believe that the NYT is Fair and Balanced??

From Washington Prowler we get the following:[5]

The Times claimed that MoveOn was given no special treatment, but several organizations that sought to place ads in a similar manner in past years have been turned away or were told that the ads were bumped for higher paying ads.

 

Was Walter Duranty given no special treatment when he wrote phony articles from Moscow denying the gulags and horrors of Stalin??

According to a former New York Times ad sales staffer, a coalition of pro-life groups attempted to take out a full-page ad in the Times during the Terri Schiavo debate in Congress, but were turned away. "I think that such a group would have qualified for our advocacy discount, but perhaps the policies changed in the past couple of years," says the ad rep.

 

Similarly, during the 2004 election season, a representative from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth sought to place a full-page ad in the paper, but was turned away.

 

The MoveOn staffer said that the organization was made aware of the discount from a New York Times reporter based in New York.

Sure.  We need some conservative  and other organizations to query the NYT about certain ads they might wish to run and share rejection notices. Political reciprocal courtesy requires that the Sulzberger staff reject any ads that would give the non-leftist or non-communist Americans some voice in their yellow rag.

Somebody set up a sting here and expose these political parasites parading as being non biased.

rycK

We are amused at the little fabricated joust between Columbia's president Lee Bollinger and Iranian ‘president” Mahmoud  Ahmadinejad. The pundits were startled and some upset at the harsh introduction given a visiting ‘head of state’ to a liberal university where an analysis of the ‘facts’ and open mindedness is touted against the prevailing history of the institution. This covey of insults  was a predictable sham. Here is why:

Liberalism is the very dialectical[1] and diametric opposite of the defined platform of conservatives and successful capitalism around the globe and is founded on an anti-morality stance supported by lies and bigotry. Liberals stress that ‘talk’—a dialectical exercise-- will lead to new views and remedies on any subject, but modern liberalism uses other methods to assert their long-held beliefs even if they fly in the faces of Reason and History.  The liberals have ‘decided’ that Global Warming is a reality and will not even listen to critics or respond to obvious flaws in their silly assumptions.  The liberals proffer t heir platforms as fact sans facts. As such, this interaction between Iran and Columbia was a pedestrian essay in stale politics. Both sides hate the US and capitalism. Neither side budged or even blinked.  And, why should they? What do they gain politically? They both share a forum to attack Bush.

Let us look at some words and relate them to political precepts.

“Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, set the combative tone in his introduction of Ahmadinejad: "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."

Ahmadinejad retorted that Bollinger's opening was "an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."

Note the first response of an unhappy liberal is a rabid emotional outburst with waving arms and tears and threats and pointed  personal attacks.  On cue!  

Liberalism is a collective swarm of pathologies that exhibit a grand collage of numerous unsavory social attributes. The salient precept and first thrust of liberalism is a flat rejection of any form of morality or human conduct not specifically praised by the left. Here, while issuing their own moral pronouncements upon others with instant judgments, they despise and emotionally wage continual war on the generally-accepted tenets of morality as previously elucidated from thousands of years of history and practice. They must convince their victims that the ‘poor’ and ‘disadvantaged’ and ‘marginalized’ peoples should vote for liberal Democrats in all elections and gratuitous  but generous allowances are made for crimes against humanity, sodomy and incest as an obvious sop.

Apart from a rejection of morality, manifesting itself in a wild array of perverted antics and proposals, the far left must incessantly place absolute blame upon others for poverty, racism, AIDS (concocted by the CIA to murder opponents), misdistribution of wealth and other social maladies as defined by their elites even though these social defects form the very basis of political control by the left. Without poverty, racism and other high-flying social demons they would have no voting audience thus they seek to enhance and stabilize poverty and overt racism because these negative attributes support their system with cash and numerous gratuitous jobs funded by the state and federal tax bases. One can only wonder how many jobs are created by crime and drugs in the US alone just  mention drug counselors, parole officers and others as a few categories.  The healthcare bill is enormous in the cases of drug addicts and those who acquired AIDS by being ‘progressive,’ Stalin’s word [1] for devoted leftists in the US. We spend more money on AIDS research than on heart disease although there are fewer than two million citizens with the affliction and most Americans will die of heart disease. The capitalists are their primary political targets since capitalism provides opportunities for everyone to make money and become financially independent and avoid liberalism and its drug-induced or social hang-ups. We heard all this stale fluff recited ad nauseum during  the Marxian Era and reechoed  in  the late 19^th century  Fabian Era by George Bernard Shaw and his radicals and his ‘permeation’ theory of propaganda designed to force or entice the government into confiscating all property and capital in England and serving ‘justice’ by reshuffling the fruits of capitalism  among the populace according to the Fabian Formula. The Fabians were awash with calculations and theories as to how socialism must be the only mechanism of governments. This joke persists even after the demise of the USSR, PRC, and other hilarious socialist-communist-Marxist ‘governments. .

The functional political theory of liberalism is to isolate and divide groups and force social and economic warfare among these factions comprised of honest citizens on one side and the fabricated or imaginary groups that they deliberately create as dedicated opponents. As for racism, the left howl and whine daily about the injustices and insufficient wealth of minorities although they exploit these groups as packs of simpering dupes  and treat them as a broad collection of  properly propagandized ignoramuses to secure and maintain the large fraction of votes they cast in elections. Anyone with brains or a good education would seem to reject liberalism outright, or sooner. Racism is deliberately preserved, nurtured and held as a rabble rouser agenda item to keep certain votes properly corralled in their political camps. Any imbalance in society may be attributed to racism if any minorities are not equal participants in all economic strata. This form of hypocrisy is not noticed by the victims themselves as they have no choice but to believe in liberalism if they are to get freebees from the tax base. The support of liberal racism is further demonstrated by their supple and adamant support of Islamo-Fascism in all matters. There are no instances of any liberal with substantial political power not supporting our enemies and wildly supporting Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez or, in the past, Mao and Ho and Che. They see American military casualties as political pawns in the battle against capitalism.

Religion is criticized as dogmatic although the leftists ‘believe’ in Global Warming and other mystical theories that soar beyond reason and offer no proof—only consensus. We can get a ‘consensus’ about drugs, prostitution and petty crime from any shooting gallery the day after the welfare checks are mailed out

Drug addiction and sloth, which leads to terminal poverty, and sodomy, leading to isolated and marginalized groups, are strong factors in preserving the necessary reality of grinding poverty and maintenance of leftist political power. The theory is to make as many citizens dependent upon the leftist-controlled government for their needs as possible while ignoring the evils of drug addiction, crime and worse. Drugs make th ier victims ‘feel good’ and want to vote Democrat. Depressions of both  mental and economic forms are favourable to their cause. High unemployment is proof that capitalism is a failure. Drugs are celebrated in song, verse and rhyme in public places by all sorts of leftists like Jerry Garcia[2], ‘intellectuals’ like Allen Ginsberg[3], ‘academics’ like Timothy Leary [4], Sean Penn [5],  the Black Panthers [6], and even  ‘scientists” like Carl Sagan. Drugs are mind-expanding and necessary.  Kiddy porn is protected whenever possible as is pedophilia in the Catholic Priesthood and elsewhere as a mere statement of free speech, a right guaranteed by the Constitution that the left would torch in a heartbeat. We wonder if the left have a problem with necrophilia? These folks seem to derive some personal satisfaction in seeing their unwitting followers suffer and die from substance overdoses and attendant diseases as long as there are tears and a bouncy melody to accompany the moans and groans on the way to the polls to vote. Janis Joplin’s death[7] from heroin and alcohol is still a cause célèbre for the radical left. They nod in approval as Jerry Garcia died in rehab for his numerous excesses and drug addiction.

Sexual perversion is a sacred and protected form of Rite of Passage for many leftists so liberal judges are quick to find strange and unusual reasons to lessen or minimize the sentences of convicted criminals. It seems that no act of degeneracy is too disgusting to be hailed as praiseworthy by the sordid left. Pedophilia and incest are particularly admired and honored by radicals probably following Shelley[8] and Byron[9]. One degenerate who sodomized young girls was not sent to prison because he was ‘too short.’ Perhaps the judge was referring to his penile gland.

Violent criminals are considered to be political victims and incarcerated criminals are deemed ‘political prisoners.’ Their circumstances and deeds are ‘forced’ by our capitalist society so their crimes must be excused. Faye Stender [10] wanted to put the system on trial and defend the disgusting Black Panthers and their street crimes and drug sales.  No matter how heinous the crime there is no reason for a liberal to advocate the death penalty except in the case of Nazis although they loudly hail state-funded abortion as another Rite of Passage and becomes yet another cause célèbre and excuse for merrymaking and doing drugs. Angela Davis was acquitted in the Marin County trial when accused of supplying guns for the murder of the judge and others  by the Black Panthers because they did not belileve that she knew what the guns would be used for. Duh?!

Liberalism is a disgusting aspect of our society and has done little good and much harm.  We need better laws to restore morality and restrain these social parasites from perverting our society. We do not need such people in positions of power. Vote accordingly.

rycK

Hillary Clinton has announced a detailed plan for soaking the American tax payer and adding  more layers of bureaucratic bunglers to our government, fodder for the Tax Maggots[1]. She can, for a mere 110 bln dollars, half of which may be gotten by taking away tax cuts from ‘the rich,’  [read tax increase for  everybody] , provide everyone with healthcare insurance. Gee, what a deal. So, we can add what she thinks is 19  million new persons to some paper trail for only 110 bln or $ 5800 per person in new charges or $482 per month each. This is about what the average person pays in our system of 2 trillion dollars with about 130 million workers not counting illegal aliens, which work out on the average to be $15,502 per worker and for an average family of 3 this works out to $5100 per year or $431 per month per person. Looks like she is $50 short, but at this level who is counting except those who are the victims of the tax maggots.

There are numerous assumptions, mostly false and some blatant lies in this program.

[1] Everybody already has healthcare, illegal alien or not. The ‘insurance part’ of this argument is just bureaucratic fluff.

[2] The employer will either have to pay more for this or dump the HC benefit or some balance of both that makes business sense. Read loss of jobs here.

[3] There are no monies here for new government hires at phenomenal salaries, directors, staff cars, security and such mentioned here. We are to presume that there is no additional cost. Will they work for nothing?? Sure!

[4] She believes that about half of this can be made up of a tax increase by taking away tax benefits from other persons. Does she recall that tax hikes do not return a full 100% of the burden?? Her dream of about 55 bln in tax revenues is a 60s era pipe dream with the swirling marijuana smoke, incense and free love with Marxism and terminal drug addiction as the Final Rewards.

[5] To add some staffing to this wreckage we are talking about hiring second-rate persons, the very definition of Democrats, to sit around on their trans fat-free tushies and shuffle papers at huge salaries, not subject to supervision or downsizing but  with expensive health care benefits to the tune of about $130,000 each. 1000 of these seat warmers comes to $130 million, but 200,000 comes up to 26 billion dollars!! Half of that is still 13 billion!

[6] Continuing on with this travesty we note the inefficiency effect of government plans that tend to work directly against the stated objectives. We saw this in the Great Society, where the resultant society was not so great and[ still isn’t], the expensive War on Poverty that subsidized poverty, and Social Security, a slush fund for Congress to ‘barrow’ the excess and spend it to get reelected. This effect is more than 15% which hikes all numbers above by 100/85 or %18.

[7] Let us not add in the 110 bln, take away 20% of the tax hike [add 11 bln]  add in 15% in inefficiencies [+23 bln], provide for more staff [+13 bln] and we get, for no real change in health care: 157 bln.

[8] Although we already spend $600 bln ‘on the poor,’ which is not counted as income so liberals can recite  a Fabian Tract Speech on poverty speech daily, we find that that 19 million will pay nothing for this perk. This means that the average worker will have to pay for all the excess costs in addition to his/her own HC, which works out to $431 plus another $1207 per year or an additional $100 per month, which is two  or three tanks of gasoline at the current price.

So, after gaining nothing substantial, the average worker will have to pay $531 per month for three persons on average for no increase in the quality of health care. A fine example of socialism from the progressive socialist who was a former Saul Alinsky Communist, crooked lawyer, perjurer and crook. We expect something reasonable from these far leftists?? Think again.

This kind of cost increases merely results in hiring fewer employees. The illegal aliens, criminals and professionally poor will lose nothing, pay no new fees,  and vote for Hillary in droves. Anything to Grunt and Grab money from the capitalists as G. B. Shaw was  proud to say.

This form of psychosis is standard socialism which defeats efficiency, adds useless fingers to useless keyboards, generates another paper holocaust and will increase inflation and unemployment. These forms of economic evil are like lavender water to the nostrils of the Marxist parading as a ‘progressive.’ Grunt and Grab: The motto of the far left.

Think about this outrage and vote accordingly.

Hillary and Dirty Campaign  Contributions Revisited

It is always interesting to see fictional characters reappear as if by magical apparition in politics. We thought that the baleful bleats of the Victorian-Era Fabians had faded away like the average  rotten onion must eventually do, if even we must wait for  eternity, but the same old hackneyed platitudes and social pleas seem to persist in Western societies and identical tactics are used to grunt and grab for power and money. Huey Long lives in the persona of many Democrats of leftist persuasion. Machiavelli was right: use the old dirty political stuff that works chosen from the list of bribery, corruption, prevarications, crime and more. Maybe bribery will become respectable if the Clintons saturate the news with enough examples. Greek democracy failed because of demagoguery and ours will slide down the same ditch if we fail to recognize the political dangers inherent in our fetid political arena.

Some of our leftist politicians are for sale cheap. Of course political power requires money and there exists a cadre of slimy Marxist Asian criminals with frequent Red Army connections who bring bags of cash to crooked politicians such as the Clintons and their stooges. We can cite such examples as Al Gore [algore for diversity reasons] and the Buddhist Temple Follies with dirty cash from the Chinese Red Army [1] In algore’s case, Janet Reno just refused to investigate her darling of the left. She was busy ignoring gun laws that could be used to put robbers and murderers in jail and was devoted to burning down Waco [for gun violations and sex ??] among other things.

We saw other criminals such a s Charlie Trie  [2] and Johnny Huang  [3] roaming free around the White House to dump loads of dirty money in the laps of the Clintons with impunity. And the Clintons hop and clap in wonder, surprise and adoration at the loot. OH! We didn’t know it was dirty! Such is the case with liberals: they will use any and all resources to grunt and grab power and punish capitalism for its intrinsic abuse of humanity echoing Shaw and his Fabians. Now, like malaria, the dirty money schemes keep boiling over anew with the current and predictable Norman Hsu Scandal as the current and enduring example of sleaze [4] I hope the bloggers are sifting through the Clinton donors as I write this. Next, Osama bin Laden will plop a bale of money on Hillary in exchange for a quick exit from the War on Terrorism and she will be proud to accept it.

Hillary’s complex personality appears to be some kind of intercalated amalgam of George Bernard Shaw’s famous character Lickcheese[5], the adorable Marxist Colonel Rosa Klebb[6]  from the James Bond movie From Russia with Love and Lady MacBeth. Surrounded by bribists, Hillary and Bill will do anything for power. She has no ethics and is unfamiliar with the full truth in any context as demonstrated by her numerous provable liles in court and in the media. The Sartorian Conclusion [7] from the key Shaw Play here is that dirty money is still money and the source of political power—so let’s grab all we can. Grunt and Grab: The theme song of liberal Democrats. .

rycK

.