New York Times notices 'political violence' and blames...Republicans

Behold The New York Times, the Paper of Record for the dissembling, demagogic Democrat party.

First the lie in the paper's assertion, above the November 27 full-page editorial, that "[the editorial board] is separate from the newsroom."  That is indeed a laughable comment, considering how the news pages (and other sections of the Times) are filled with anti-Trump/MAGA bias.

The title of the November 27 editorial, no doubt, is geared to gladden the hearts of the paper's multitude of anti-Trump/MAGA readers: "HOW A G.O.P. FACTION ENABLES POLITICAL VIOLENCE."

What "POLITICAL VIOLENCE"? an obscure grassroot inquires.  For the paper of a demagogic record, attention must not be paid the Summer of Violence, 2020, when rampaging radical-left mobs caused $2 billion (if not more) in property damage in rioting across the homeland, rioting that took the lives of at least two dozen people.

For the left, officeholders, media, and elsewhere, dissent is equated with "extremism" that must be banned, extinguished, erased from the homeland, and to hell with the First Amendment.  The November 27 editorial prides itself in its Iron Curtain mindset by denouncing Twitter's reinstatement of Citizen Trump as evidence of "further proliferation of 'denigrating and dehumanizing discourse.'"  The Times' message, obviously: free speech is what the editorial board says it is.

But if The Times falsely blamed conservative populists (what MAGA is all about) for enabling political violence, the editorial board complained, in effect, that the FBI is not as vigorous as it should be in swooping down on peaceful conservative activists, including pro-life citizens.  The Times hailed a Senate report "that the federal government, specifically the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, has 'failed to systematically track and report data on domestic terrorism'" (emphasis added).  For The New York Times, FBI SWAT raids on peaceful conservatives are not worth comment, much less the failure of the Department of Homeland Security to keep our southern border secure.

The totalitarian mindset of today's New York Times was brought home in the middle of this demagogic editorial, with praise for President Biden's dictator-esque denunciation of MAGA Republicans for "'promot[ing] authoritarian leaders, and ... fan[ning] the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the very soul of this country.'"  See how the president of the United States falsely attacks MAGA patriots with his flame-fanning fantasy, when the actual arsonists are the Antifa thugs and other violence-prone leftists, who are given license by the police-defunding left to wipe out the property that is among the "personal rights" of the citizenry.

The Times editorial board even has a problem with elections, because the voters might elect MAGA Republicans.  And so, the November 27 editorial cries out that "elections alone are not enough."  The inference is apparent: MAGA candidates must not be permitted to see public office.  Accordingly, The New York Times makes clear where the threat to democracy originates.

Just one additional quote from the November 27 editorial to make clear that the concept of objective truth has become abhorrent to The New York Times: "Two prominent Republicans who have been outspoken about right-wing extremism and baseless lies, Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, have been driven out of office."  This is the very model of a "baseless lie."  For one thing, Cheney and Kinzinger are Republican apostates — self-hating if you will.  If Ms. Cheney was driven from office, every incumbent who loses a primary contest is "driven out of office."  And, as concerns Mr. Kinzinger, who decided not to seek re-election, by the topsy-turvy mindset of The New York Times, any officeholder who decides not to seek re-election is "driven out of office."

The New York Times should really be asked to show cause why its November 27, 2022 editorial is not a demand for limited popular government, preferably under the stranglehold of just one political party, the Democrat party.

Image: Adam Jones via Flickr (cropped).

If you experience technical problems, please write to