Well, duh:

(more…)

Sometimes the best examples of the New York Times’s increasingly delusional, anti-rational, anti-American and, let’s face it, anti-human-nature mindset are to be found not on the front page, where their slavish adoration of the Obama Administration continues apace, if somewhat diminished, but in the feature pages. There, their crackpot social theories and their chic cultural Marxism are given free rein to inject their slow-acting poison into the bloodstream of the body politic, with what serious consequences we can now all see after more than four decades of this nonsense. Which is why this piece, innocuously published in the Fashion & Style section, is so important.

If you want to encounter the smiling face of evil, read on:

A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding

After all, from Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn to Harry Potter and Ron Weasley, the childhood “best friend” has long been romanticized in literature and pop culture — not to mention in the sentimental memories of countless adults.

But increasingly, some educators and other professionals who work with children are asking a question that might surprise their parents: Should a child really have a best friend?

You read that right: the Times has just declared war on best friends. By now, nothing  that emerges from that seething pile of maleficent animosity toward every decent thing should surprise us, but this is a new low, even for the paper that publishes Frank Rich. And it gets worse: (more…)

Yesterday’s New York Times simultaneously vilified Americans and romanticized female Muslim jihad homicide bombers. The killer, Dzhanet Abdullayeva, was the subject of a sympathetic lede story on the front page, with this headline: “Lured into Russian Jihad, 17-Year-Old Avenges Slain Husband.” (Maybe their sympathy for this murderer embarrassed them, since online the same story was given a straighter headline: “Russia Says Suicide Bomber Was Militant’s Widow.”)

Lured? In the photo, the girl is wearing a hijab, brandishing a gun and looking straight into the camera. Her husband was a bloodthirsty murdering jihadi. Do they discuss the religious motivation that led this girl to commit mass murder? No. Do they educate Americans on the Islamic texts that demand, command, and prescribe jihad? No. They make it, “Jihad, a Love Story.”

The Times only discusses the religious motivation to dismiss it with psychoanalysis. It quotes Zaur Gaziyev, who is identified as editor-in-chief of Svobodnaya Respublika, an independent newspaper in the jihad-riddled region of Dagestan. “These religious ideas are very attractive,” says Gaziyev, “because they give a kind of alternative to the world that exists. And so this young girl, who grew up without a father, who didn’t know male power.” So the poor little girl turned to jihad all because she didn’t have a father! Islamic teaching? Forget it. A kind father figure was all she needed!

Meanwhile, the same issue of the Times ran a photo of Tea Party protesters right below a vintage photo of Weathermen terrorists. The flagship publication of the mainstream media, the New York Times, has equated patriotism with the terrorism of the Sixties — the revolution that destroyed this country. Andrea Shea King at Radio Patriot notes that the Tea Partiers are the victims of terrorism, not its perpetrators: (more…)