June 2006
Dear New York Times / Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr.,
I would like to thank the Media Research Center for encouraging me to write to you this morning at the New York Times. While they had a few suggested talking points, I really didn’t need any, having plenty of my own.
First, seeing that you had been a reporter for the Raleigh Times of North Carolina probably explains a lot about where you may have obtained your early years of ethical reporting.
With that newspaper and several others in North Carolina recently having to have their arms literally twisted to finally report on the public's outrage over the antics of Speaker Jim Black and his involvement in video gambling, while in bed with the vendors of North Carolina's silly and suffering so-called educational lottery, you obviously learned your trade well from area media professionals in North Carolina.
And with the state's legislature suddenly backing away today from being sure North Carolina residence would not have their homes taken away by developers for projects for the wealthy similar to a New York Times Golf Resort (the Times does print three national golf publications) and Yacht Club, their backing away a result of pressure by elected officials tied to the NC real estate industry, (oh, my), it just goes to prove times (pardon the pun) still haven't changed. I mean, exactly who was buying those $8,000 cherry in-laid dining room tables I saw advertised in the New York Times during last Christmas (my holiday) on page three?
While your bio on the Times Web site reports that under your leadership the Times had earned 28 Pulitzer Prizes, weren't a few of those provided by this anti-American organization because the Times had simply printed leaks on secret programs the government had been running to find terrorists within the United States, ones that were communicating to outside countries? Have you also mentioned to your readers that this occurred only five years later after a Times Editorial had demanded the Bush Administration get serious on finding terrorists. Are we missing something?
Your recent Pulitzer pat-on-the-back Prize articles had been a part of an ever-changing environment where an executive of AP had said, recently after 9/11, that the word “terrorist” no longer had any meaning, and that reporters for AP now had to call them simply "bombers." I guess that puts everyone in the media’s nest on the same page, eh?
Of course, this is nothing new for the Times, receiving a Pulitzer for printing the "Pentagon Papers" in 1972, helping Americans to finally lose the Vietnam War. Gee, with America not having won a war since WWII, the Times was still even upset then that America was trying to bring democracy to Japan and Germany, writing to its readers to bring home the troops and that, anyway, it couldn’t be done. (Hum, does that sound familiar?) How does the Times get it wrong so many times (oh, that pun again?) We would hope the Times under your watch doesn't circulate its issues in today’s free Germany and Japan. I mean, that just wouldn't be fair, would it, the Times not sticking to its liberal guns.
We also need to ask if the Times ever printed the color photo of Senator Kerry receiving an award from the North Vietnam Communists circa 1995 for his personally helping them defeat America in Nam. The Times probably didn’t, more interested like the rest of the media today in tying the Swift Boats in with Monica’s dress as the stuff of traitors.
But what about the Times also being so close to the ACLU, O’Reilly reporting that the ACLU is one of the most dangerous organization in America? Do you think he included terrorist cells in that count, too? And are you, or any of your editors, card-carrying members of the ACLU, since it’s well known that secular Jews who hate Christians have made the ACLU their card-carrying civil rights organization of choice?
While doing everything possible to reward terrorists for hating America, has the Times reported the antics of the ACLU in America to reduce consent for sex with children down to 13-year olds via a brief it had filed in a case in Kansas City a few years ago? The attorney general there so angry at the ACLU that he was reported to have said the ACLU would probably print out 1-800 wallet cards for all American children in case parents complained as their kids went out the door, maybe their teacher these days, the ACLU making it always clear it’s only protecting the civil rights of a child (except for the almost born, of course, who have no rights.)
So in a New York Times and ACLU World can we now look forward to America becoming more like Europe in the likes of Holland, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bator Ginsburg * using European judicial decisions to justify her voting against sodomy laws in America, saying America needed to catch up with their progressive world? So in light of that, have you reported to your readers above the fold and on the cover of your newspaper the latest news from Holland, in which a new party is about to be formed, the "Charity, Freedom and Diversity Party?" Sounds a bit “rainbowish,” doesn't it? Their principal platform plank: Reduction of the legal age for sex from 16 to 12 years old. Ah, who would have guessed, an extension of America’s diverse group, NAMBLA.
"We are going to shake The Hague awake!" it was reported the pedophiles of Holland proclaimed, for whom dropping the age for sex to 12 is but only the beginning. They wish to eradicate all prohibitions on sex with any child or animal.
This seems to better represent the real heart and inside world of the New York Times, and it is not a pretty picture across this nation by American family standards. But we are sure the Times will continue to work to assist any "Charity, Freedom, and Diversity” party that might want to form here for the sake of America’s kids and their civil rights.
And in an effort of fairness, has the New York Times reported to the public it has many arms stretching out across America and into homes pushing its anti-American and anti-moral theme to Americans everywhere? I mean, I don’t think the general public knows what a hell of a list it really is:
"The Boston Globe," (the only one we hear about), "The Daily Comet," (Thibodaux, LA), "The Dispatch," (Lexington, NC), "The Gainesville Sun" (Florida), "International Herald Tribune" (50%, with the Washington Post Co.; Paris), "The Ledger" (Lakeland, FL), "The Press Democrat" (Santa Rosa, CA), "Santa Barbara News-Press" (California), "Spartanburg Herald-Journal" (South Carolina), "Star-Banner" (Ocala, FL), "The Tuscaloosa News" (Alabama), and the "Wilmington Morning Star, "North Carolina. (Do you think it’s a coincidence that the UNCW campus today literally rejects all conservative speakers from its campus because of influence by the Times Wilmington newspaper?)
Of course then there are other Times products such as KFOR-TV, Oklahoma City, KFSM-TV, Fort Smith, AR, WHNT-TV, Huntsville, AL, WHO-TV, Des Moines, IA, WNEP-TV, Scranton, PA, WQAD-TV, Moline, IL, WQEW (AM), New York City, WQXR (FM), New York City, WREG-TV, Memphis, and WTKR-TV, Norfolk, VA.
Back to the ACLU and along with America’s academic community, one in which Professor Singer of Princeton supports human sex with non-humans, (animals), a preferred member of Princeton’s elite Center for Human Ethics, (you can’t make this stuff up), his being rewarded for being aligned with the morals of Holland and Justice Ginsburg, the president of Princeton on his hiring saying that universities need to be open to other ideas, (I kid you not.)
To this disturbing end, I have noticed that ACLU secular Jewish supporters and members are coming out of the closet now, openly and arrogantly saying their Old Testament is really a myth, which would quickly explain why under your leadership of the Times it rejects American morals as offensive to America’s freedom of speech.
But have you, as it leader and in all fairness, reminded your readers of this fact that the Old Testament is now considered this myth by prominent secular Jews of the ACLU, their saying it’s only a document written by uninformed ancients who just didn't understand what was going on around them, a document that happens to also includes Moses and the Promised Land? That probably also makes the New York Times in-line with the National Geographic Cable channel’s 2006 spring program titled, “The real story of Noah,” meaning not that fake one in the Bible?
But, “Ouch,” wait a minute. That means the land that was owned by the Palestinian Muslims was, “Oh my God,” stolen in 1948 by secular Jews who left that part out about the Promised Land being a myth, the Christian West putting Israel on Palestinian land while being told by liberal secular Jews it was the real Promise Land of Moses from the real Old Testament, breathed on by the real God of Abraham and Jacob.
But now in this secular-progressive world the truth finally comes out, the Times not telling its readers that secular Jews of the ACLU don't believe in the Old Testament at all, a myth as directly heard from their lips, and that there may be tens-of-thousands of them supporting that organization along with the personal agenda of the New York Times.
I guess then after reviewing all this, the printings of all these stories from the Times makes prefect sense when you know the truth.
What a guy you are, helping the Times get 28 Pulitzer Prizes while under your leadership. That says a lot about the whole mainstream media, doesn’t it, simply being a secular-progressive “nest” lined up against the majority of everyday, flag-waving Americans. Notice we said flag "waving," not "burning."