The NYTimes lied about Republicans, guns, Sarah Palin, and pretty much everyone in their editorial about the Hodgekinson attack – down to making up facts from thin air
Davie French unravels the Times’ depraved attack on truth:
Let’s be blunt. In its zeal to create moral equivalencies and maintain a particular narrative about the past, the Times flat-out lied. There is simply no “link to political incitement” in Loughner’s murderous acts. The man was a paranoid schizophrenic who first got angry at Gabby Giffords years before Palin published her map.
This is, of course, part of an ongoing pattern of slandering everyone to the right of Martin O’Malley:
Let’s not forget, this is the same editorial board that, one year ago, laid blame on Republican Christian politicians for an Orlando terrorist attack by a confessed Islamic jihadist. Omar Mateen swore allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but the Times editors believed (again, without any evidence) that he was inspired in part by Republican objections to granting men access to women’s restrooms. The editorial board should retract its editorial and apologize.
And would someone – Pat Kessler? Bob Collins? Erik Black? Cat Richert? Nina Totenberg? – finally let slip the dogs of our mainstream media’s vaunted “fact-check” industry? We’ve got a chain of howlers here:
In addition to lying about Palin, the Times couldn’t resist yet another nonsensical attack on gun rights — claiming that “studies” have shown that armed citizens would “probably” kill or wound innocent bystanders in the effort to stop the killer. Which studies? In fact, we have considerable real-world experience showing that armed citizens can stop mass shootings without harming innocent civilians.
As Dennis Prager says, the Second Civil War has been underway for some time, now. Until Wednesday, it largely wasn’t a shooting war.
French also notes how Sarah Palin likely has a decent defamation case against the Times, even though she’s a public figure. I hope she does. I’ll contribute.
