Connect with us

The New York Times

Sarah Palin has The New York Times sweating bullets after what they did to her

Published

on

Republicans are far beyond fed up with The New York Times.

“The paper of record” is one of the main tools of today’s Democrat establishment.

Now Sarah Palin has The Times sweating bullets after what they did to her.

Sarah Palin’s lawsuit against The New York Times is moving forward, and people on the Left are concerned about the tightening of libel laws.

The Times shamefully blamed Palin for the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords.

Palin put out a campaign ad that illustrated crosshairs on Democrat-controlled Congressional Districts that should metaphorically be targeted in elections.

That was used by the Left to spin the insane narrative that Palin was attempting to get Democrats killed.

The Times wrote, “In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The entire narrative was bogus from the start – Loughner was not deeply ideological, and he had been obsessed with Giffords long before Palin’s ad.

Giffords herself got in on the act, saying, “We’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list . . . But the thing is the way that she has it depicted has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that.”

Nevertheless, the lie spread that Palin was somehow culpable for the horrific shooting.

That prompted Palin to go to court, and now Democrats are worried.

The Times also worked in a dig at Donald Trump, fretting that he may get his wish of more robust strictures regarding libel.

The paper wrote, “But a libel case that begins Monday in federal court in Lower Manhattan, Sarah Palin v. The New York Times Company, shines a spotlight on the many ways that Mr. Trump’s seemingly far-fetched wish may no longer be so unthinkable.”

Now The New York Times could be in hot water.

In addition to Palin’s suit, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe is suing the paper for defamation, and a judge ruled that his lawsuit can move forward, too.

In days past, The Times could get away with libeling whomever it wanted.

But those days could be over.

The Leftist hacks at The New York Times may finally get held accountable for the fake news they spread.

Pants on Fire Official Polling

The New York Times

New York Times reporter tries to blame Tucker Carlson for this heinous act

Published

on

Tucker Carlson is the most successful man in the news business these days. 

And rather than up their game, members of the Lame Stream Media are busy trying to tear him down. 

A New York Times reporter just took that to the next level by blaming Tucker Carlson for this heinous act.

Leftists never let a crisis go to waste. 

It doesn’t matter how heartrending a tragedy, you’d better believe there’s a political consultant somewhere figuring out how to get the most political mileage out of someone’s suffering. 

And as what’s shaping up to be an ugly midterm election for Democrats approaches, they’re fighting like a little pickpocket who just got cornered. 

As the unofficial press department for the Democrats’, the New York Times is taking the lead in blaming all Republicans for anything and everything. 

Recently, writer Nicholas Confessore, a repeat offender, decided to pin a horrific grocery store shooting on all Republicans with Tucker Carlson accused of being the ringleader. 

Of course, he had to blow a lot of smoke in order to fill an entire article with his nonsensical theory claiming that he fears whites will be replaced by other races is a driving force behind the Republican party. 

 “In recent months, versions of the same ideas, sanded down and shorn of explicitly anti-Black and antisemitic themes, have become commonplace in the Republican Party—spoken aloud at congressional hearings, echoed in Republican campaign advertisements and embraced by a growing array of right-wing candidates and media personalities,” Confessore wrote. 

(True to his type, Confessore conveniently forgot that black, Hispanic, and other minority Republicans exist.) 

He then went on to claim, “no public figure has promoted replacement theory more loudly or relentlessly than the Fox host Tucker Carlson.”

So, was the lunatic gunman a big Tucker Carlson fan? 

Probably not, since he wasn’t even mentioned once as a source of inspiration in the killer’s 180-page manifesto. 

But the New York Times author conveniently forgot to mention one significant fact, Tucker’s boss—Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch—was singled out in an anti-Semitic meme in the manifesto.

Obviously, if Fox News—where Tucker Carlson is the leading personality—were some sort of inspiration a deranged man wouldn’t be lumping the outlet in with every other media company in his rage against the world. 

Rather than pinning anything on Carlson and Republicans in general, these types of longshot attacks merely show how desperate partisan “journalists” are becoming as they try to distract Americans from the profound failures of Democrats at every level of government. 

Pants on Fire News will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.

Continue Reading

The New York Times

The New York Times is attempting to demonize one organization for this ridiculous reason

Published

on

The Supreme Court leak lit a match inside the Democratic Party.

Politicians and media outlets are on the warpath.

And the New York Times is attempting to demonize one organization for this ridiculous reason.

Pro-abortion zealots are terrified over the Supreme Court leak that signaled the overturning of Roe V. Wade.

In response, Democrats have activated full-on assault mode.

Activists are illegally protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court justices, and the corporate press is attacking anyone that harbors pro-life views.

Now, The New York Times is going after crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

In a comically dishonest piece, The Times tried to present CPCs as somehow nefarious.

In an op-ed entitled, “Pregnant? Need help? They Have an Agenda,” The Times lamented the fact that CPCs currently outnumber abortion facilities three to one.

The Times wrote that “a large share of women who visit C.P.C.s are not pregnant or undecided but are parents who in many cases have been failed by a society that does little to help poor mothers. The anti-abortion movement takes advantage of their economic vulnerability.”

So CPCs are taking advantage of women by trying to convince them not to get an abortion?

And unlike Planned Parenthood, CPCs do not charge money for their services.

Planned Parenthood is a moneymaking enterprise that performs almost zero services beyond abortion.

Democrats do not want see see a cultural shift away from abortion, which is why they despise CPCs that provide free resources.

For example, CPCs have ultrasound machines; when women see that their baby is alive, they keep the baby at a rate of 80%.

Conversely, Planned Parenthood does not allow women to view ultrasounds.

The so-called pro-choice movement is fine with a woman’s choice so long as she opts to kill the baby.

If they were really about choice, they would provide women with all of the pertinent facts.

But Democrats have to lie in service to the pro-abortion position.

Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that abortion becomes legal if Roe V. Wade is overturned when in reality the issue simply goes back to the states.

Also, 65% of Americans are against abortion after the first trimester.

That number jumps up to 81% after the second trimester.

CPCs are partly why people are getting the real data about abortions.

Pants on Fire Official Polling

Continue Reading

The New York Times

The New York Times wrote one obituary that will turn your stomach

Published

on

The corporate press is clearly biased toward the Left.

No better example exists than The New York Times.

And The Times wrote one obituary that will turn your stomach.

One of the main differences between the Left and the Right is that right-wing extremists are strongly condemned by conservatives, but left-wing extremists are embraced by leftists.

The Left have a long history of keeping their radicals in the fold.

For instance, upon the death of far-left domestic terrorist Kathy Boudin, The New York Times wrote an accurate obituary for her, then hours later softened it after pushback from liberals.

The original obit read:

“Kathy Boudin, who as a member of the Weather Underground took part in the murderous 1981 holdup of a Brink’s armored truck, died on Sunday. She was 78.”

The revised version read:

“Kathy Boudin, a member of the Weather Underground imprisoned for her role in a fatal robbery but who later helped former inmates, died at 78.”

So the revision takes out the word “murderous,” and almost makes it seem as if Boudin was passively involved in a less specific “fatal robbery” when she was suddenly “imprisoned.”

The revision also made sure to add in that she helped former inmates, framing her as a reformed, do-gooder liberal and not a murderous psychopath.

Major left-wing outlets do this all the time.

The Times deleted a tweet after being shamed for quoting one of their old obits that described communist mass murderer Mao Zedong as “an obscure peasant” who rose to power and “died one of history’s great revolutionary figures.”

Upon the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Badhdadi, The Washington Post described him as an “austere religious scholar.”

The Post also described Iranian general Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike, with the obituary: “Qassim Suleimani, Master of Iran’s Intrigue and Force, Dies at 62.”

Around the same time, in the obit for former Cincinnati Bengals head coach Sam Wyche, The Post made sure to mention that Wyche was reprimanded for “barring a female reporter from the team’s locker room.”

Sadly, many of the radicals of the 1960s and 1970s moved into teaching positions and other areas of liberal influence, which is largely why society is such a mess today.

For example, Boudin’s son Chesa, who was raised by other Weather Underground terrorists after both his parents went to prison, is one of the radical leftist district attorneys bankrolled by George Soros.

The terrorists who raised him—Obama adviser and ghost writer Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn—both got teaching positions at University of Illinois at Chicago and Northwestern Law, respectively, without ever having to renounce their radical past.

Radicals have been hiding in plain sight for decades, and it might take just as long to undo all of the damage they have done.

Pants on Fire News will keep you up to date on this developing story.

Continue Reading

Sign Up For FREE Alerts

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Trending