Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns


Who Does the New York Times Hate?

Ridiculing the New York Times for liberal bias would prove a full time job, so I generally only venture into that fertile field when the example is particularly egregious. One of those occasions occurred today. The Times published a full page ad from the Freedom From Religion Foundation which viciously slurs the Catholic Church and openly calls for Catholics to leave the Church.

The hysterical ad at times sounds more like satire: "Why are you aiding and abetting a church that has repeatedly engaged in a crusade to ban contraception, abortion and sterilization...?"  But the intent is genuine. Catholic League president Bill Donohue is a war hawk on these matters and declares of the present ad:

Never has there been a more vicious anti-Catholic advertisement in a prominent American newspaper than the one in today's New York Times by Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). 

FFRF is a vitriolic, militant and litigious atheist group with very little tolerance and even less good taste or class. They are of no real interest in this matter, of course - it's not difficult to find a small coterie of hate-filled vermin under any given rock. The issue is that the Times has handed them a microphone. Try to imagine a similar ad aimed at Muslims - or attacking atheists - and imagine the reaction of the New York Times - and the liberal disciples of tolerance who are suspiciously quiet in the wake of this obvious expression of hate and intolerance.

Click to enlarge.

New York Times Anti-Catholic Ad.jpg


Categories > Journalism

Discussions - 21 Comments

"Ridiculing the New York Times for liberal bias would prove a full time job, so I generally only venture into that fertile field when the example is particularly egregious."

- Not to mention the combine traffic jams you have to put up with when you're out there.

I've always thought liberals were supposed to be a bunch of lily-livered pacifist peaceniks, so I gotta ask - why Judith Miller (who has now moved on to other liberal outfits such as FoxNews, City Journal, and... NewsMax)? You know Judith - the liberal who helped to kick-start the war in Iraq that progressives loved so much.

"On January 2, 2011 (her 63rd birthday), she appeared on Fox News Watch, Miller criticized Wikileaks' Julian Assange for releasing classified government documents, calling him a "bad journalist ... [H]e didn't care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out, or determine whether or not it hurt anyone," she said. In 2004, Miller had defended her own New York Times reporting by saying "My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself." [32] Following Miller's 2011 comments, American Conservative editorialized, "Rarely do we see hypocrisy with such sparkle!""

... and I'll give you 3 guesses which liberally-biased newspaper published this ad:

Prominent liberals Gary Bauer (I bet he really gets under your skin, eh?) and Bill Kristol are on the board of the Committee for Israel. Bill Kristol... name sounds familiar... doesn't he serve on some other board of directors or advisors? Ashbridge? Clarebrook? The name escapes me at the moment...

This was also nice:

"[FFRF] are of no real interest in this matter, of course - it's not difficult to find a small coterie of hate-filled vermin under any given rock."

Oh yeah - keep it up with that. They're not human, they're vermin! What better way to demonstrate YOUR tolerance, good taste, and class. Maybe some straight-out cockroach imagery next?

Oh my, we've got a Scanlon infestation! Now where did I put that RAID.

Hurry, before it scurries off into the shadows....

Wow. How off base can you be? It was not an editorial. The NY Times agrees with content in the same way they want you to buy gold, take a vacation in the or go along with any other advertiser. As for the ad itself, I see no problems. It only says what should have been said long ago.

There is an easy way to test the idea that the NYT is biased. Submit an add with the subject line "It's Time to Quit the Muslim Faith" and see if they will print it. I doubt it because they know if they did they would become bomb targets within days. There is a coordinated attack against faith in America from the left. Right now we can still choose, but if the left wins this fight we will become outlaws and criminals. I'm not a religious person by I served 28 years in the US Special Forces willing to die to protect every Americans rights to choose, or not, to worship and practice THEIR religion. They may turn the other cheek.....but I don't.

The ad that Paulette posted was NOT the actual ad that the NYTimes printed (not sure where he got it). The FFRF submitted that ad to be printed, but the NYTimes - under pressure from their left-wing atheist editors (?? That's a new one! I think, by your rules, I'm supposed to accuse you of anti-semitism at this point) - rejected that ad, and made them change "quit" to "consider quitting." It's a small, but significant, difference.

Here's the ad they submitted:

From FFRF's website:
"The Times required FFRF to alter its punchy headline, ‘It’s Time to Quit the Catholic Church,’ to ‘It’s Time to Consider Quitting the Catholic Church.’"

Michael Johnston - I don't quite understand your reaction (on several levels but, for now, I'll just ask about one). On one hand, you say that you don't consider yourself a religious person, but then you claim that the left (which apparently doesn't include the millions of Americans who would identify themselves as part of the religious left) is engaging in a "coordinated attack against faith in America" and that "if the left wins this fight we will become outlaws and criminals." "WE"?? If the attack is real (and it definitely is not) and you are not religious, then how will you - a non-religious person - become an outlaw or criminal?

I've never - not once - had an atheist, an agnostic, a "free-thinker" secular humanist or anyone of the sort come to my door trying to proselytize me. I have, on the other hand, had a variety of Christians come to my door to try to get me to see things their way - much like this ad does. Was that an "attack" on me (a non-theist)? I didn't see it that way; annoying perhaps at times, but not aggressive or coercive in any true sense.

The ad is asking readers of the Catholic persuasion to consider leaving the "Church." To leave the INSTITUTION - based in The Vatican/Rome, with powerful branches elsewhere - not necessarily to stop believing in God, Jesus, Mary, or anything else. Of course, they probably think (to varying degrees individually) that religious belief can be a problem of its own, even outside religious institutions, but in this ad their focus is on Big Religion (did Breitbart have a site for that?) and its significant institutional power. One can have deeply religious faith and convictions without having a membership card to (or being on a list at) the Church.

Further, the ad is clearly addressed to "liberal" and "nominal" Catholics. People who typically go through the motions of church attendance and some aspects of the rituals, but still have considerable differences of opinion with church leadership, and have no intention of bowing to the leaders as if they are the deities to submit to, to obey, to treat as "infallible" - since, obviously, they're human beings (yes, even The Pope!).

If the Catholic Church represents The One, True Way, then it will have to hope that people know that or discover it, and stop reacting to everything with such insecurity. Many in its "flock" have already left it behind, for all intents and purposes (see the large majority of Catholics who have used non-Vatican-approved birth control). If a newspaper ad is enough to make someone leave your religious institution, how much was that person really a member to begin with?

If people decide to leave the Church after weighing the pros and cons and hearing different perspectives, that's their prerogative - and even their right, correct? - and it doesn't represent an "attack."

I think someone should submit an article calling Islam a false religion of hate. Let's see how fast the Gray Hag prints that one! Or an add calling abortion doctors red-handed murderers. The list goes on. The NYT is a leftist rag that has completely lost any objectivity it once had, and millions of us hope it goes the way of the dodo.

As for the Catholic POV on contraception, they may have a point. The West is demographically dying. The media is sex-saturated. The family is limping along under the full onslaught of the Left (soon to be joined by sham couplings of gays and eventually polygamists and anyone else who demands their "civil rights"). Perhaps the Catholics understand something that our elites don't -- the fastest, surest way to undermine a civilization is via sexual relations and destruction of the family. This has always been the bedrock of human societies, and the notion that we can recast civilization using atomized, self-interested individuals in place of kinship has never been tested (until now). It would certainly be a great irony if economic and technological progress was accompanied by moral degradation and the collapse of civil society (but that's sure what it's looking like).

Update on the nearly broke New York Times:

So let’s take a look at The New York Times Company’s financial condition at fiscal year-end 2010. Please note I adhere to a conservative method of financial analysis which dictates that intangible assets are always fully discounted. Without further ado, here are the not-so-pretty highlights of The Gray Lady’s sad state of financial disrepair:

Long-term debt and capital lease obligations stood at $996.4 million.
From fiscal year-end 2008 to fiscal year-end (FYE) 2010, long-term debt and capital lease obligations have increased by $416 million; which is a 71.7% increase over this two-year period.
Looking at the balance sheet on an "as-given" basis, the total-liabilities-to-equity ratio is 4 to 1. Anything over 3 to 1 indicates uncomfortably high leverage.
After discounting $1,004.5 million of intangible assets, The New York Times Company has an allowable net worth of negative $340.4 million.
What may give some adoring supporters of The Gray Lady some solace is her improvement, in working capital, since fiscal year-end 2008. As of FYE 2010, allowable working capital stood at $284 million. This is a vast improvement over her allowable working capital position, of negative $460.8 million, at FYE 2008. Two consecutive years of profitability, to be sure, will help rebuild working capital. On the other hand, the improvement in working capital also came at the price of going much deeper into debt over the past two years; with three key debt transactions being highlighted below (amounts owed are as of FYE 2010):

$227.7 million owed to companies affiliated with Carlos Slim. Proceeds from this loan netted The New York Times $221.3 million in 2009. The effective interest rate, on this transaction, is 17%
$217.3 million owed in relationship to sale-leaseback financing of The New York Times’ ownership interest in its headquarters building. Proceeds from The Gray Lady’s sale-leaseback arrangement netted her $210.5 million in 2009. The effective interest rate, on this transaction, is 13%.
$220.1 million owed on 6.625% senior unsecured notes issued in November of 2010. This transaction netted the Times $220.2 million in cash and has an effective interest rate of 7%.

These long-term borrowings, over the past two years, were instrumental in helping The New York Times to pay down its bank line to $0 (down from $380 million), to redeem $259.5 million of long-term debt, to make debt repayments of $99.6 million, and to bring working capital significantly into positive territory. Unquestionably, replacing $380 million of short-term bank debt, with long-term debt, gave working capital a considerable boost.

Taking on debt, at such high interest rates, clearly indicates The New York Times Company’s management team is desperate. Keep in mind that this heavy borrowing binge is a manifestation of The Gray Lady’s reckless financial management during the first decade of this millennium. Regarding the time period of 2000 through the third quarter of 2008, I stated the following in my essay The New York Times Company’s Self-Inflicted Insolvency:

Since 2000, The New York Times Company has generated a respectable cumulative net income of $1,598,062,000. Yet management, over the same period, has paid out $2,779,601,000 for stock buybacks and dividends. This means, during the present decade, stock buybacks and dividends have exceeded cumulative net income by an astonishing $1,181,539,000. Is it any wonder The New York Times' balance sheet is such a train-wreck? Operationally, this company has done well during the past nine years. Conversely, the company's balance sheet has been hideously mismanaged by an incompetent executive management team – as supervised by a grossly negligent board of directors.

So, as a result of this negligent financial management, the Times had to load up on debt in order to stay afloat a while longer – how much longer is anyone’s guess.

In light of the terrible economy and the grim prospects for print media, what is the prognosis for The Gray Lady? As Gary North points out in his excellent LRC piece titled Why I Hung Up on a New York Times Reporter, 2011 is not shaping up, so far, to be a good year for The New York Times. In the first quarter of 2011, both operating profit and earnings per share have declined dramatically when compared to the first quarter of 2010. As Dr. North stated in his article: "Profits are fading fast. It is clear what is happening. The Times is going belly-up."

Looks like the New York Times has a lot in common with GM, Chrysler, Solyndra, Light Squared. Soon it will be another failed liberal idea.... Faster please

Awww ... look. The crazy lady can cut and paste things she can barely read, let alone understand. Very sweet.

I learned that you from you Pumpkin. Problem you have with it is that you cannot dispute the post with facts. The NYT is going down - like most liberal ideas...

Sucks to be a liberal..

What's ironic is that something like this ad might well be illegal in many European countries (and even in Canada). They have hate-speech legislation, and I do believe this qualifies (it is certainly disrespectful to an important cultural group). Isn't it liberals who are constantly comparing us to the Euros (unfavorably)?

It's not that I object to the NYT doing this -- I just think the hypocrisy smells to high heaven. And, like any good conservative, I think the freedom of speech should always be accompanied by the full consequences of speech (short of illegal violence/coercion, of course).

Isn't it conservatives who are always saying that we shouldn't be like the Europeans? Shouldn't you be celebrating the fact that anyone can purchase an advertisement if they have sufficient funds? What's to stop the Catholic church from purchasing their own ad refuting the claims in this one?

"What's to stop the Catholic church from purchasing their own ad refuting the claims in this one?"

Good question. Answer: Nobody, and even more importantly, nobody's trying to stop them. Running ads to try to win people's hearts and minds is a completely different thing than trying to prevent someone else from doing the same.

The Catholic Church HAS, in fact, been running some ads - nearly $4 million worth (no better use of those tithed dollars?) - although I don't think they really dare to address the various substantive problems of the Church, nor the claims in the FFRF ad. They also aren't in the print edition of the NYTimes (which has limited influence on a tiny, shrinking portion of the population), they've been on television.

“Ads will air more than 400 times during the three-week period on major networks like CBS and NBC and cable stations like TNT and CNN inviting viewers to take a look at the church and to ‘come home’ during the holidays and New Year’s,” Peterson told on Tuesday.

The 30- and 60-second commercials will air in English and Spanish on major networks in every diocese, according to The Wall Street Journal."

Interesting that Obama's approval has actually gone DOWN since this kerfuffle started about insurance-provided contraception. The MSM claims it's gas prices, but I think this aggressive assault on religious sensibilities is also to blame.

And Fred, when did I say that I oppose printing this ad? Did I not say "It's not that I object to the NYT doing this"? I swear, I think liberals have grown even worse about reading comprehension (if that is possible).

In short, it's great we live in America instead of one of those European nanny-states. The NYT can do as it pleases, and also take the consequences (like slowly going broke, as Cowgirl points out).

There is nothing that makes a european policy per se wrong. Sometimes from conservatives it seems like it has gone from what could be a plausible rebutable presumption to straight dogma. This is unfortunate because the germans are doing a lot of things right. A plausible reason for not transplanting french or german law is chiefly that these are civil law and not common law nations. Still we have community property, even in Texas which is supposed to be the "conservative state".

If you ask me a good deal of this is about branding. Conservatives will never be able to articulate true conservativism if they don't seperate out the sort of "trademark" indicia tests for liberalism. Of course this will never actually happen broadly. The same is sort of true of liberalism. These categories will just get re-written. It is a living definition depending upon what interests you want to rationalize as eternal principle.

The same goes for the NY Times of course. For example Nate Silver is probably one of the best demographic political analysts in print/online. (I hope his NCAA bracket is good, because I know nothing about the sport.) Even before Santorum won in Miss and Alabama he was warning that these thinly polled southern states are 50% more innacurate than the baseline. In the past he has also criticized Rassmussen polls (but in his system he still gave them considerable weight). Ironically his results were off in this case because he didn't have the courage of his own conviction.

Also note Santorum complained that Romney was getting favorable treatment on FOX news. That actually seems like a fair argument in this case, because FOX News has been reality checking him and pushing Romney inevitability by focusing on delegate count instead of message.

On the other hand Fox is right that neither Santorum or Newt are likely to get enough delegates.

I am not sure you ever get to liberalism or conservatism if you sit back and sort of analyze politics as a trademark battle involving authentic indicia of liberalism and conservatism.

But the "trademark battle" perspective might be the most accurate conception of american politics, after all a pretty big chunk of folks are just going to stick with the republican(if they are conservative), or pick the democrat (if they are liberal).

According to the branding of Santorum as the social conservative, Romney as the business conservative, and Newt Gingrich as the gasoline price conservative (2.50).... the improving economy weakens Romney, but drives up gasoline prices strengthening Gingrich, but the fact that Santorum won (contra polling) in Miss and Alabama seems at least to confirm Redwald's point that the perception of assault on religious liberties, is outweighing concerns about gas prices at least among conservative primary voters.

Redwald, you support Gingrich you have to argue that it is gas prices, or else I am going to give up on rational politics!

political breakdown with humor!

Romney-Tax cuts for the rich, end the death tax, Hard diplomacy with Iran, start a war with China (trade). Deficit? Theosis?...Look at that tree, it is just the right height.

Santorum-True Conservatism, God is not progressive he is a conservative, Hard diplomacy with China, start a war with Iran, cut some taxes on manufacturing and put a stop to growth in government spending (somehow/prayer?).

Newt- Expanded research and exploration, drill baby drill, Jus say No to algae, clean coal, colonize the moon, talk with a southern accent, hang out with Palin. Bomb Iran first then do diplomacy, stop counterfiting in N. Korea.

Paul-End all wars including the war on drugs, eliminate 2 agencies in addition to the 3 Rick Perry could not name, (that is 5 for the math challenged home gamers) and reduce the deficit by reduceing foreign aid that subsidizes the military industrial complex. Quit negotiating trade agreements and just let free trade work.

John, switch to decaf...please, but it's too late.

Whadda ya know:

The Quit and the Dead
By Mark Steyn
March 14, 2012 10:47 A.M. Comments0
Pamela Geller was struck by that ad The New York Times ran the other day, “It’s Time To Quit The Catholic Church“, an “open letter to ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics”. So she sent in her own ad, “It’s Time To Quit Islam“, an “open letter to ‘moderate’ Muslims”. Analogous artwork, same pitch, only difference being the intended target. The Times’ Senior Vice-President for Corporate Hogwash called to tell Miss Geller that – surprise! surprise! – they were way less eager to rush this one into print:

Bob Christie, Senior Vice President of Corporate Communications for the New York Times, just called me to advise me that they would be accepting my ad, but considering the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, now would not be a good time, as they did not want to enflame an already hot situation. They will be reconsidering it for publication in “a few months.”

So I said to Mr. Christie, “Isn’t this the very point of the ad? If you feared the Catholics were going to attack the New York Times building, would you have run that ad?”

Thus the courage of the secular left: If you’re going to be “provocative”, it’s best to do it with people who can’t be provoked. Pamela is right. If you want to be treated with respect by The New York Times and the rest of the multiculti establishment, make it clear you’re willing to kill them. That’s an interesting message to send.

(Would've replied to ArtDeco, but he only offered "Whaddya know"...)

Maybe the fact that I essentially agree with the Shrill Right (i.e. Geller, Steyn, Limbaugh, NRO, RONLT, probably PowerLine, etc.) in this particular case should give me cause for concern, but I'm gonna roll with this. The New York Times should publish Geller's ad without any delay.

Is print journalism attempting to save itself by simply becoming a forum for competing ads?

Looking back at Michael Johnston's initial challenge...

"There is an easy way to test the idea that the NYT is biased. Submit an add [sic] with the subject line "It's Time to Quit the Muslim Faith" and see if they will print it."

Christie's already agreed to consider printing it, so it looks like they'll PROBABLY pass the test, on a simple "Will they or won't they?" basis. But Geller will, of course, equate any delay in the publication of her ad with her being thrown in solitary confinement for 30 years. (See her translation of "agreed to consider the ad" to "Rejected!")

It should be noted, too, that if the NYT were to follow the same behavior that they exhibited with the FFRF ad, they will insist that the ad be tempered a bit, and its headline changed to the more diplomatic "It's Time to Consider Quitting the Muslim Faith" (although really I think that should read "Islamic Faith" but whatever).

Johnston, again:
"I doubt it because they know if they did they would become bomb targets within days."

I see no reason to think that they couldn't have been a bomb target already, for years. I think they're probably aware that such a thing is always a distinct possibility.

"As quoted in an August 26, 2002, New York Observer article, Coulter had previously stated: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." McVeigh's April 19, 1995, bomb attack destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people."

(Later, in '06, Coulter called for NYTimes staffers to be "executed")

So, who's to say if one of of Coulter's fed-up fans is not plotting such a thing at this moment? Perhaps they see McVeigh as inspirational as Coulter does. Or maybe they'll be less ambitious and just go the Jim David Adkisson route and just find a place where liberals (supposedly) congregate, and start shooting.

But the fact that some of the same people who are outraged that the NYT published the anti-Vatican ad, simultaneously desire an anti-Muslim ad seems to complicate this aspect of Johnston's (very typical Christian conservative) claim:
"There is a coordinated attack against faith in America from the left."

What is meant is that there's a "coordinated attack against Christianity in America from the left." (Of course, that's almost wholly illusory, but let's continue anyway...) But the term "faith" is used - why? If the original ad was an attack, then why wouldn't the same people (who are all about protecting "faith"!) be against the anti-Muslim ad, too? Let's protect Christians, let's protect Jews, let's protect Muslims, let's protect Hindus, etc. - right?

The NYT's Christie claims that the decision to delay is due to the Koran burnings (he didn't mention flushings and urinations - such respect for "faith" -haha!) and the soldier in Afghanistan who took out a bunch of civilians. That explanation doesn't really make sense to me. Are they worried about employees at their NYC office, or about US soldiers in Afghanistan?

They should just publish the ad and let the discussion and fact-checking begin. The delay will only feed Geller's shrill cries of martyrdom.

Paulette described the Freedom from Religion Foundation as "a vitriolic, militant and litigious atheist group with very little tolerance..."

(militant? - really??)

But what of Geller's groups? She seems to be a selective atheist (as most religious zealots, fundamentalists, and literalists are) herself, and her vocal support of the execrable English Defence League (anyone who has labeled Occupy protestors as "thugs" or "hooligans" should not dare utter a word in defense of EDL - if they've got even the tiniest trace of integrity) and white supremacists in South Africa makes her a person of highly suspect motivations, to say the least.

It's unfortunate that Geller's asserted herself as a leader in this anti-Sharia thing, because there are SOME issues that she covers that are worth measured, nuanced consideration - and worth resisting.

For example, she's clearly making sense when she says stuff like this:
"The thing is: I don’t care if you worship a stone; just don’t stone me with it. These demands are a way of imposing Islam on a secular society. Asking for prayer space in public schools for Muslim children is imposing Islam. If the child is religious, send them to madrassa."


"What I’m saying is the separation of mosque and state needs vigilance, that’s what I’m saying."

Still, one only needs to scratch the surface of her work to see that some rather obvious hatred is the basis for it - xenophobia, racism, and standard-issue bigotry.

So, I'm wondering, has Geller had anything at all to say about recent comments made by Santorum or Gingrich? Is she all about the separation of mosque and state but indifferent to the intertwining of church and state or synagogue and state?

FFRF, on the other hand, seems to be taking on the religious extremists in the USA - in order of their influence and power; thus, that would mean evangelical Christians and Catholics are the first order of business. I don't think they would necessarily have a problem with Geller's ad (they might even run it themselves), but they're not a pro-Muslim group. They're about keeping the bullying theocrats out of power - be they Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc. Take a look at who dominates in Congress (Just 1 Muslim - is he living up to Beck's paranoid fears? No.), and who's got the microphone in the GOP race (2 right-wing Catholics (with strong, theocratic impulses) and a Mormon) and what's happening in contemporary American society (it's a jihad on birth control, not pork products), and you can then see why FFRF put their efforts where they did. Unless of course you're sympathetic to some form of Christian theocracy - and clearly some RONLT are.

(Lastly, it should be noted that the journalism of the NYT, while very, very, VERY far from perfect, is enormously better than the journalism to which its biggest critics gravitate towards (FoxNews, FoxNation (!!), the Moonie Times, Weekly Standard, NewsMax, and a plethora of blogs which simply operate in a Drudge-like or Malkinite fashion and do no real reporting. Whining that the Times is 3 notches to the left of objective center and then attempting to compensate - or demonstrate the Correct Way to do journalism - by staking ground 58 notches right of center is just absurd. More "absurd" even than the comic stylings of Rush Limbaugh.)

Craig, I would read your post, but stupidity that runs that long just isn't worth my time. Despite your snark and other inanities, the point is proven - the Gray Hag plays serious favorites. It is no longer worthy of being considered a serious source of news (something smart and sensible people have known for a very long time). That's not to say you can't find some objective reporting in the Times, but increasingly the news branch is being used as a Trojan Horse to sucker people into NYT's political preaching.

I hope it goes broke, soon.

A more honest title for the blog-post would have been "Who Hates the New York Times?"

But wait!! Don't give up on them so fast!
They still advertise on Rush's radio show!

(and I expect to get at least a bit of begrudging credit for linking to little Tucker Carlson's site)

...and it looks like Rushbo might be getting some more sponsors after all:

Maybe Ashbrook can advertise on his show, too.

"Come to Ashbrook. We're a non-elitist academic program that won't turn you into an America-hating Communist! You'll learn why Reagan had a special blessing from God, and why, just like you, the Founding Fathers hated unions and hippies and government meddling!"

Seriously? The RCC has protected pedophilia for millenniums. Some, not all, priests have raped children; and then the Church blames it on the child or on homosexuals. Seriously?! The NYT has a right to print / not print ads. You may or may not agree with their ads. If the latter, don't read it. Casting blame on the newspaper or FFRF or liberals for publishing this is a stretch at best.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2012/03/who-does-the-new-york-times-hate.php on line 1136

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2012/03/who-does-the-new-york-times-hate.php on line 1136