November 26, 2022

The Walrus and the New York Times

*Editor’s Comment* – One can choose to accept the same premise as displayed in the below piece by the author that, “Because its writers are so ill-informed, the New York Times is an especially laughable purveyor of politically-motivated climate hysteria.”

While that may be true, it should be added that the New York Times, under the control of the Council on Foreign Relations (you must study to know this), one of the creators of climate change hysteria, is doing what it is told to do or suffer the consequences. One may willingly believe the writers of the New York Times are THAT stupid that they would peddle nonsense for political reasons, but the reality is probably a combination of ignorance and doing what they are told.

But it should be discussed why any media outlet would, knowingly or otherwise, print this garbage of lies and fraud. As I’ve said, partly because they HAVE to but mostly because they can. They can because they know a majority, perhaps overwhelmingly so, of readers, most ignorant and most lazy, will blindly just accept what the writers write – after all, it is the New York Times. Brainwashing becomes easy on a willing subject.

The onus should come back to the readers. They are the ones, who, if they cared at all, would NEVER blindly accept anything any news agency or politician told them. If we stopped being accepting, they would stop printing the crap. It’s one thing to be ignorant of facts, it’s quite another to double down on the ignorance and repeat, while believing, a bunch of bullshit some totalitarian newspaper published.

Educated yourself. Truth is power.

The Times is peddling ignorance here. Actually, the congregation of walruses on land is an age-old phenomenon known as “hauling out.” It has nothing to do with the volume of sea ice at any given time. In fact, the Times is not just peddling ignorance, it is recycling it. Today’s Times piece is paraphrased from a much-derided column by Gail Collins that ran in October 2014.

Source: The Walrus and the New York Times | Power Line


New York Times: “You Lie!”

*Editor’s Note* – It appears that the NRA is following the letter of Tennessee laws as they pertain to possession and use of a firearm by those attending the convention. What the convention organizers decide to do for their display weapons, is their business, although I’m struggling to come up with valid reasons to remove firing pins from guns because they are not for sale. I am open to comments and thoughts as to the reasoning.

So, yes, the New York Times is lying through their teeth on this issue. For clarification, however, let me explain that due to the anti-gun lobby, the right to keep and bear arms in Tennessee, is, in my opinion, seriously being infringed upon. According to Hand Gun Law dot US:

Open Carry is only legal for those with a valid permit/license to carry a concealed firearm.

Because of draconian laws, always supported by progressives like the New York Times, the ONLY people that may be allowed to attend the NRA convention, with their gun, must have a concealed carry permit THAT IS VALID IN TENNESSEE. (Tennessee does have permit reciprocity with other states.)

Shove that up your muzzle!

From the National Review:

“Seventy-thousand people are expected to attend the National Rifle Association’s convention opening on Friday in Tennessee, and not one of them will be allowed to come armed with guns that can actually shoot. After all the N.R.A. propaganda about how “good guys with guns” are needed to be on guard across American life, from elementary schools to workplaces, the weekend’s gathering of disarmed conventioneers seems the ultimate in hypocrisy. There will be plenty of weapons in evidence at the hundreds of display booths, but for convention security the firing pins must be removed. So far, there has been none of the familiar complaint about infringing supposedly sacrosanct Second Amendment rights — the gun lobby’s main argument in opposing tighter federal background checks on gun buyers after the 2012 gun massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut.”<<<Read More>>>


From When the New York Times Printed Truth

By Jim Beers

The following link to a New York Times article from 1907 should be considered by all those currently living in wolf country; those living in soon-to-be wolf country; and those supporting the forcible use of unjust central power to force wolves on their neighbors and fellow citizens.

Wolf History:

Wolves Killing Deer

The New York Times Published: May 26, 1907

When I try to explain to fellow Minnesotans the role of dense wolf populations on the disappearance of moose and deer, they smirk and sneer. They talk of global warming, ticks, unspecified diseases and the need for more research. Newspapers, Universities (especially the U of Minnesota and the U of Wisconsin that are true hotbeds of environmental/animal rights extremism), and State wildlife agencies that have become clones of these State Universities all avoid the mention of wolf predation and identify anyone questioning this as an uninformed crackpot.

Nonetheless, consider how everyone accepts the “fact” that year-around wolf predation on Isle Royale, an island far offshore in Lake Superior, steadily accounts for the disappearance of moose. This romantic notion of “Mother Nature” at work makes the very efficient but gory killing of calves, pregnant cows and adult moose by wolves into a “natural” and entertaining children’s story. The same scenario when proposed by hunters, trappers, ranchers, elderly rural residents and others regarding wolf effects on deer and moose in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan is merely proof of “old”, uninformed and anti-social political incorrectness.

There is no denying the following simple truths about wolves in settled landscapes like the Lower 48 States:
– Wolves kill moose and deer, reducing them to levels that will not sustain hunting.
– Wolves spread over 30 deadly and destructive diseases to humans, wildlife, livestock and dogs.
– Wolves are dangerous and deadly threats to children, the elderly, dog walkers, hikers, and a wide array of rural residents and recreationists.

The thing to remember about wolf predation; whether on an adult moose caught in a snowy woodland by a group of wolves, a pregnant cow moose giving birth caught by one or more wolves, a doe deer and fawn run down by a couple of wolves – IT IS ADDITIVE to whatever else is happening to moose and deer. Even if you accept global warming (I do not) or think maybe ticks or some errant and unknown disease has just popped up (each of which I find unlikely as significant until I see evidence I can trust) – wolf predation is steadily more and more efficient as wolves learn (just like that dog in your backyard) AND IT IS ADDITIVE!

Consider again that 1907 NYT article. In addition to what we deny as it is all around us today, weather phenomena like the winter snow depths, snow characteristics, and snow duration can and will create an environment wherein suddenly wolf predation both for food and for the joy and fun of killing (even dog packs will kill a large number of deer in snow or sheep by cliffs for “fun” and “excitement”) will dramatically reduce the number of deer and moose regardless of the “experts” protestations to the contrary.

When wolves are not kept at very low densities or eradicated from regions inhabited by people like the Lower 48 States or Europe, what happened in 1907 will happen again and again. This article is about but ONE of many reasons wolves were eradicated in The Lower 48 States and Europe by our wise and determined ancestors.

Two years before this article, in 1905, George Santyana, a 19th century philosopher and author said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Some say Santyana was paraphrasing the 18th century Irish statesman, author, orator, political theorist and philosopher Edmund Burke who observed, “People will not look forward to posterity, who never look backward to their ancestors.” Posterity is truly what we no longer concern ourselves about as abortion, birth control, births out-of-wedlock and non-child-oriented marriages proliferate in these very same American and European societies looking to secular morality and self-gratification in matters like “restoring the native ecosystem” and returning large predators to settled landscapes no matter the human costs.

In either case, both men were telling us to heed the lessons of history. In the case of wolves, environmental extremists and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats have not only denied history: they have perpetrated a great crime against Americans and Europeans in a way that relieves them of responsibility for their actions and the terrible fruits of their crime.

One last quote from Edmund Burks seems in order:
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Jim Beers
15 Sep. 2014

If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan, Minnesota with his wife of many decades.

Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting. You can receive future articles by sending a request with your e-mail address to:


Conservatives Ask NY Times, Gannett CEOs About Bias Issues

Warning New York Times Shareholders: Management Puts Liberalism Over Shareholder Value

At Gannett, CEO Addresses Lingering Questions from Local Paper’s Decision to Print an Interactive Map of Home Addresses of Registered Gun Owners in New York State

National Center Asks New York Times to Add “Genuinely Conservative” Writers to Opinion Page

Tells Gannett CEO that Local Paper’s Decision to Publish Gun Map “No Doubt” Was Political, Describes Recent Tweet of Local Publisher Denigrating NRA Head Wayne LaPierre as Evidence

New York, NY/McLean, VA – National Center personnel went one-on-one with the CEOs of two major media companies this week, asking them pointed questions about specific elements of liberal bias in their organizations.

On Wednesday, April 30, in Manhattan, Senior Fellow Jeff Stier asked New York Times Chairman and Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. about statements by the paper’s own public editors that the Times has a liberal bias and also asked why the Times does not add several genuinely conservative editorial writers to its opinion page. Stier noted that this move could improve profits and enhance shareholder value by making the paper more attractive to the 40% of the public that, according to Gallup, is conservative.

On Thursday, May 1, in McLean, Virginia, Chairman Amy Ridenour asked Gannett Corporation President and CEO Gracia Matore about last year’s controversy in which a Gannett newspaper in New York published the names and addresses of all registered handgun owners in two well-populated New York counties in an interactive map, upsetting the community and exposing Gannett personnel to threats. She also said the decision to run the interactive map almost certainly was political, given that the president and publisher of the local paper just this week tweeted to her Twitter followers a picture of the head of the National Rifle Association with the words “STARK RAVING MAD” across the top.

Stier asked Mr. Sulzberger, in part:

Gallup polls for the last 22 years show that nearly twice as many Americans — on average, 40 percent to 20 percent — identify as conservative than identify as liberal. So about 40 percent of our potential customer base looks at us as out-of-touch with the values that are important to them.

It seems that liberal ideology is being placed ahead of shareholder value.

My question is this: why does the New York Times continue to intentionally alienate so many potential readers? Can you explain the business rationale for rejecting 40 percent of potential subscribers? What, if anything, has been done to address the bias concerns from your own public editors? And why do we not add several truly conservative writers to our opinion pages to enhance our appeal to 40 percent of the market?

Stier received what he called “a cordial non-answer answer.”

“I felt his answer was a little bit of a shell game,” Stier said. “He kind of acknowledged they are perceived as liberal, but said the news is completely separate from the opinion section, and in the news, he said, we do the best we can. He agreed that the paper’s editorial perspective is liberal, but our criticism – and that of the papers own ombudsmen — was about liberal bias in the news division. Our criticism was more substantive than his answer; his answer was more spin than substance. And when it came to the point of why the paper does not put more conservatives on the op-ed pages in order to appeal to a larger customer base, he avoided giving me a direct answer. My impression is that they see themselves as liberals and are comfortable with that; that they aren’t really concerned with making more money at the expense of offering opinions the majority owners disagree with.”

The full text of Stier’s question to Mr. Sulzberger of the New York Times, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Ridenour asked Gannett’s Ms. Matore about a Gannett newspaper, the Journal News, publishing the names and addresses of legally-registered handgun owners in two New York counties a year ago. The action frightened many people, who feared criminals could target them as a result. Some angry people threatened the local newspaper staff and Gannett management, including Ms. Matore herself.

Ridenour asked, in part, and as prepared for delivery:

That the [decision to publish the map] was political there can be no doubt. I note that the paper’s president and publisher just six days ago tweeted out a picture of the head of the National Rifle Association under the words “stark raving mad.” This was on an account identifying her as president and publisher of a Gannett newspaper, and not noting in any way that her tweets were personal opinion only.

If reporting is correct, no one in upper management here at Gannett was consulted before the Journal News outed legally-registered handgun owners. If there was no policy at that time that management should be consulted before such a controversial, and even dangerous action — for Gannett employees as well as law-abiding members of the general public — is there one in place now? Or are publishers of local Gannett papers empowered to publish anything they see fit, even if controversial, potentially-dangerous and on topics on which they have intense personal views?

“I received a decent, if careful, answer from Ms. Matore,” said Ridenour. “Bottom line: the local papers are encouraged – this was said twice – to check with the appropriate executive at Gannett when making future decisions about such things as publishing interactive gun registry maps. I note this falls short of a pledge not to print any more such maps, or to place a mandate on local publishers that executives be contacted, but we can’t expect Gannett to be micromanaging the day-to-day publishing decisions of all of its publications. It needs to be able to trust its local publishers to make the correct decisions and to know when an issue is of such a magnitude as to make it wise to consult upper management. It appears the Journal News publisher wasn’t as wise as she might have been when she decided to publishing the interactive map.”

“Ms. Matore did not comment on my description of the Journal News publisher, using a Twitter account identifying her position with the Journal News, tweeting a picture of the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre with the words ‘stark raving mad’ over it, but she was attentive,” added Ridenour. “In her place I would not comment publicly on a personnel matter either, but in private I’d ask for a resignation. Here’s why: After it published the interactive gun registry map, the Journal News repeatedly claimed its motive was journalistic, yet with one little tweet, the publisher has revealed strong personal feelings against the NRA. It’s clear she was not objective in the matter of the maps. Given her strong personal views, she should have recused herself and consulted upper management. I doubt they would have been published if she had; at least, not in that controversial way. Instead, she scared a lot of people and cost her employer ad and subscriber revenue. Then, having done that, she failed to support the premise that her goal all along was journalistic by revealing her animus in public. Instead, she revealed to anyone who cared to see that her decisionmaking on behalf of the Journal News on the matter of the maps was a low-minded attack on the Second Amendment rather than a high-minded exercise of the First.”

“Although I believe the local publisher should resign, on the whole I was encouraged by what I heard at Gannett,” Ridenour concluded. “The reaction I received was very positive. To my great surprise, individual Gannett executives came up to me afterwards, on their own initiative, to praise my question and thank me for asking it. 100 percent of the feedback I received was positive, when I expected the reverse. Strongly positive, even.”

The full text of Ridenour’s question to Ms. Matore of Gannett, as prepared for delivery, is here.

Amy Ridenour is a shareholder of both Gannett and the New York Times.

The National Center’s Free Enterprise Project is a leading free-market corporate activist program. In 2013, Free Enterprise Project representatives attended 33 shareholder meetings advancing conservative and free-market principles in the areas of health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, media bias, gun rights and many more important public policy issues. The National Center has participated in 20 shareholder meetings so far in 2014.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.