RECAP: (After the recap will be todays, latest slimeball actions from the NYT)
The NYT publishes video of a dying soldier before the family is even notified of his death.
Where in the HELL does the New York Times get off on using the death of a United States soldier for shock value and reporting? Where is the “moral conscious” of the media in releasing the graphic scenes surrounding the death of one of our warriors BEFORE HIS FAMILY IS NOTIFIED?
“Pardon me, Mrs. Smith, I’m Chaplain Baker and I, um, oh, I see you’re reading the New York Times. Well, all I can say, ma’am, is that we’re sorry that we were unable to inform you through the proper chains established to provide comfort to the families of our boys when they make the ultimate sacrifice for our country and our freedom…”
From the CEO down the reporter writing the story they should every one who came in contact with that be FIRED. Any one who KNEW that that story was being released before the family was notified should be taken out and beaten. Hard.
NYT writer complains about having to obtain consent from our soldiers to show pictures of them being wounded.
It seems that as far as this writer is concerned, a soldiers right to privacy and families right to be notified of their family members death before having the soldier's picture splashed all over the front pages, comes after the medias right to capitalize on said soldiers wounding or death.
The NYT as well as other media hides certain news releases from the public.
Now, I am going to show you things that have been happening in Iraq over the last 48 hours and YOU decide, first, if this IS news you should have been told? Second, if by deliberately NOT telling the public of these things, does it go against the journalistic code of ethics?
NYT shows sympathy to a murderer.
NYT reports leaked classified information with no regard to public safety, National Security or endangering our troops lives.
As it states, this is a classified document, many are discussing the content, but in my mind, the deliberate act of treason should be the focus. The behavior of the NYT , as well as CNN in showing the sniper video a while ago, should be in taken into consideration.
The actual definition of the word treason says quite a bit:
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
Is this not what the New York Times as well as a few others is guilty of?
In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.
This is not the first time the New York Times has leaked classified information, the most recent judgement against the New York Times allowing prosecuters to review their phone records is another instance where the New York Times disloyalty to our country endangered American lives.
The recap included just a portion of the nefarious activities of the NYT and their writers.
Now for TODAYS NEWS.
Hamas terrorist or op-ed contributor to the New York Times?
Ahmed Yousef is both!
LGF also has the video of Ahmed Yousef in an interview:
Here’s New York Times op-ed contributor Ahmed Yousef in an appearance on Hizballah’s Al-Manar TV, explaining to the audience that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks—just like the US was behind Pearl Harbor.
Go. Watch it.
The Jawa Report states this:
The New York Times giving precious ink and space to Hamas supporters and apologists? Well, this is just shocking. The 'editorial' (terrorist PR) is basically a list of demands from Hamas which says give us X and the killing will stop.
Read the rest....
I truly didn't think the NYT could sink any lower, but once again, they surprised me.
Disgust is about all I can feel for them.
.
