The once-respected New York Times has been making its money lately by attacking the US Military and Conservatives. When Marco Rubio emerged as a serious contender for the Republican nomination, the Times broke the “shocking” story that he had had four traffic tickets – over the last twenty years!
Last June, on the anniversary of D-Day, they published a disgusting attack on one of America’s most respected team of warriors, Seal Team Six, the unit that took out America’s #1 enemy – Usama bin Laden. They vilified America’s most elite fighting force for “excessive killing and civilian deaths.” They described the decorated team as a “global manhunting machine” which came back from its missions “soaked in blood that was not their own.” Would they have preferred that American blood had been shed in their fights against terrorists?
So why should we care whom they endorse for president, since they have no credibility among thinking Americans?
The New York Times endorsed Hilary Clinton in her race for the Democrat presidential nomination, calling her “One of the most broadly and deeply qualified Presidential candidates in modern history.” Clinton faces a strong challenge from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. On the Republican side, The New York Times says Ohio governor John Kasich is “the only plausible choice” adding he has “been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives.” These endorsements come two days before voters in Iowa hold the first nominating contest for the November 8 election.
Let’s start with Hillary’s “broad and deep” qualifications to be president. She was the wife of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton during the time when he slept with every floozy possible, using State Police officers as his pimps. Several of these officers have testified that he ordered them to bring women to his private quarters. Many of them were state employees who were intimidated into being with Bill by being threatened with the loss of their jobs. Hillary was active in the cover up of these crimes, and even attacked the victims publicly.
Her next qualification is being the wife of the same lecher when he slept with most of the loose women in Washington, DC, as president. The joke in DC at that time was that it was easier to count the women he had not slept with than the women he had. Again, he had the help of government employees who were sworn to keep all of his crimes quiet. And again, he used his power to intimidate women to sleep with him. Monica Lewinsky was just one of his many “conquests.” But what he did to her was the most egregious. She was a young intern whose parents thought she would be safe in the “Nation’s House.” He abused that trust and he abused this impressionable young woman. Then he lied under oath about this and other affairs, and lost his Arkansas license to practice law as well as his license to practice before the US Supreme Court. What did Hillary do? She “stood by her man”, lied for him, and ordered staff members to lie, as well.
Then she served as a New York State Senator. Why did she run in New York? Because the citizens of Arkansas knew her and wanted no part of her. So she and Bill moved to New York, spent huge amounts of money buying a huge mansion and greasing the right palms, and he bought her the election. The Secret Service was obligated to provide protection for the Clintons, so they charged the government enough money for the small facility the Service built to house their agents to pay for all the costs of their huge mansion.
To say that her time in the Senate was inauspicious would be far too kind. She sponsored 713 pieces of legislation. Don’t let he word “sponsored” fool you. It doesn’t mean that she actually researched and wrote any bills. It just means that she put her name on someone else’s bills. But she didn’t choose well. Only 3 of the 713 bills (less than ½ of one percent) passed. And these were all ceremonial bills that passed unanimously because they were meaningless. One named a historic site in New York. Another named a Post Office after a general. Another named a highway after journalist Tim Russert. Not exactly a stellar Senate career. But then the only purpose in her serving was to be a launching point for her run for president.
The next part of her “broad and deep” qualifications to be president was in the form of a failed bid for the presidency. Interestingly, The New York Times endorsed her back then, as well. Obama, who was a better liar than she, beat her handily. So much for the power of The New York Times. Most Americans, except for the farthest left fanatics realized long ago that The New York Times does not provide news. Rather, it is a mouthpiece for the Democrats and Socialists of America.
Then, she became Secretary of State as part of the deal she made with Obama to drop out the 2008 presidential race and endorse him. She probably could have held out for the Vice-Presidential slot. But she felt that having foreign policy experience would help her when she ran for the White House again. What a mistake that was. First she refused to send help to the four Americans who died in Benghazi, Libya (including the first Ambassador in 80 years to be murdered in office), when American military officials have testified that they could have been in place within hours. Then, after emailing her daughter and staff members that it was a clear terrorist attack, she stood before the coffins of these four brave men and told their families that she would arrest the man who made the comedy film that she claimed caused their deaths.
Finally, she violated several federal laws by refusing to use her official (and safe) State Department email and instead set up a private email server in her residence which has reportedly been hacked by foreign intelligence services. She stubbornly refused to admit that any sensitive or classified material was sent over her private email, even though that was the only email account she used. If that is true, how did she receive her classified emails? And, although she has blamed the revelations on the “vast right wing conspiracy” that she claims has been after her and Bill for decades, she can’t explain away the State Department, FBI and independent Inspector General investigations that have revealed that emails that could endanger US agent and national security passed through her homemade email server. All this has contributed to her poll numbers showing she is the least trusted of all the candidates, and considered to be the most dishonest.
Hopefully her current run for the Oval Office will be the last time we see Hillary on the public stage. I fully understand her desire to live in the White House once again. She must miss having servants that wait on her hand and foot day and night. She must long for the power that allows her to curse and berate staff and Secret Service agents (as dozens have testified to) without consequences. But we cannot allow her longing for the trappings of power to put her in the position of being the most dangerous Commander-in-Chief of this nation.
Finally, why would The New York Times, which only concerns itself with Liberals and their issues, endorse a Republican candidate? They called their endorsement “A Chance to Reset the Republican Race.” I call it their opportunity to undermine the only people who have a chance to win the GOP nomination. If they can push a weak candidate who the vast majority of Conservatives have discarded, perhaps they can finally get their darling, Hillary, in office. After endorsing her four times (for both her Senate races and for her first failed presidential race and the current one) they would like to be right for a change – and regain some of their lost credibility.
The statement that Kasich has “been capable of compromise and believes in the ability of government to improve lives.” John McCain’s willingness to compromise with Democrats is what lost him the presidency. And anyone who “believes in the ability of government to improve lives” is delusional and is definitely not a Conservative. The only way the government can improve lives is to get out of them.
Why did the New York Times choose to endorse a candidate who has less than 1% of the support of either of the two Republican front runners? Clearly because they want to hurt the only viable candidates and cause confusion in the GOP primaries. This is clear from the savage attacks the Times made against all the other GOP candidates while making their tepid endorsement of Kasich.
So why did Kasich say he was “honored” to receive the endorsement of this Liberal rag known for its twisting and torturing of the truth? I can only imagine that, as badly as he is doing in the race, he is grasping at any straw that would give him a shred of credibility.
If I were in his place, I would have immediately responded that I reject the endorsement of the Times, and would have compared it to an endorsement by the Mafia, The Nazis, or Vladimir Putin. But that’s just me.
NY Times Endorse Clinton and Kasich
NY Times Attacks on Seal Team Six Backfire
NY Times: A Flagrantly False Liberal Narrative Intended to Smear the GOP
NY Times attacks Second Amendment, Lies about Facts
NY Times Propagates Demonstrable Lies about Syrian WMD’s