Connect with us

The New York Times

Tucker Carlson had the perfect response to The New York Times’ latest pathetic hit piece against him



The failing New York Times is going after Tucker Carlson again.

The “paper of record” and other liberal outlets constantly take shots at him.

But Carlson had the perfect response to The New York Times’ latest pathetic hit piece against him.

The New York Times expended thousands and thousands of words on an interminable hit piece aimed at Tucker Carlson.

In the three-part screed, The Times argued that Carlson constantly railed against elites, as if somehow that’s beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.

And of course the paper smeared him as a “racist” any which way they could.

Carlson took it in stride and held up a copy of the paper with a big smile on his face.

Carlson also released a video in advance of the hit piece, explaining why the Left continue to come after him.

It’s bizarre that the Left attack Carlson for his stances on immigration and war.

Carlson believes in the “crazy” idea that a country should control its borders, and that endless wars abroad are bad.

Democrats would have agreed with these arguments 15 or 20 years ago.

In fact, they did.

Bill Clinton gave a hawkish immigration speech at the 1995 State of the Union, and got a standing ovation.

Democrats once argued that unfettered illegal immigration undercut American wages.

They have since abandoned that position as well as their anti-war stance from the George W. Bush era.

Now, Democrats couldn’t care less about Americans suffering from the loss of manufacturing and construction jobs, or Americans dying in foreign conflicts abroad.

They have recast George W. Bush as an avuncular figure because he criticized Donald Trump and once gave Michelle Obama a stick of gum.

Times author Nick Confessore also wrote, “As he honed his programming edge, the show drew more and more from the arcana of the far right, especially the conspiracy theory that an elite cabal bent on destroying Western civilization uses immigration and feminist ideas to disempower and replace the native-born.

The problem for Confessore is that prominent members of the Left openly say these things.

Univision lead anchor Jorge Ramos, Hollywood director Rob Reiner, and many other leftists have gleefully talked about the “browning of America.”

However, Hispanic Americans are not fond of Democratic economic and immigration policies, either as evidenced by heavy Latino communities in South Texas increasingly moving toward the Republican Party.

As for feminism, Mallory Millett, the conservative younger sister of renowned feminist Kate Millett, wrote about her experience at a 1969 feminist gathering hosted by her radical sister.

She recounted the eerie call-response chants from the crowd, writing:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.

“To make revolution,” they answered.

“What kind of revolution?” she replied.

“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.

“By destroying the American family!” they answered.

“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.

“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.

“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.

“By taking away his power!”

“How do we do that?”

“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.

“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

The Left have not changed over the past 50 years.

Their radical ideas have been mainstreamed into the culture, and people like Tucker Carlson call them out on a nightly basis.

That’s why they try to destroy him.

Pants on Fire Official Polling

The New York Times

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



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



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



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.