Skip to comments.The New York Times’ Hit Piece On Mike Pence Is Anti-Christian Bigotry, Plain And Simple
Posted on 08/08/2018 10:38:09 AM PDT by seanmerc
The New York Times Frank Bruni really upped his game this week. In an atrociously brutal piece, he called Vice President Mike Pence a holy terror, claiming hes multiple degrees more sinister than President Trump, the otherwise most sinister person on the planet. Bruni actually warns the best case against impeaching Trump is the much greater danger of Pence.
Think about that a moment though. For all the venom and apocalyptic hysteria being spewed at everything Trump has ever said, done or probably even thought and there is plenty there of concern there is someone even worse than this president. Bruni makes Chicken Little seem measured.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Well, we know for a fact that NY Times seeks-out staff and editors who hate white men, Christians, and certainly conservatives, so nobody should be surprised.
Bruni is a restaurant critic. He’s also a militant gay guy who like a lot of NYC gay guys, indulges in victim porn. Meaning, he likes to imagine Pence building concentration camps in The Pines. Ignore him no matter how loud he cries and shakes his rattle.
Pence is from Indiana, fly over country.
NY Times are frightened by anyone who isn’t like them.
Would like to see these goofs try to negotiate life in the Mid west.
Oh the horrors!!!
The hatred for him is no surprise. He is their worst fear, even more than Trump.
The nyt just hired, and got away with it, a racist, hate-filled biytch because of their hatred for normal people.
Everything the times loves, I hate, and everything it hates, I love. May the nyt turn into dog-training paper.
A lot of what is in the NYT is anti-Christian bigotry. They are also into Anti-American, anti-white and anti-male bigotry. That is why they hire pigs like the Jeong moron.
I’ve been saying this all along! If liberals knew what was good for them, they would make sure Trump stays in office. They would pray (?) daily for Trump’s good health.
“May the nyt turn into dog-training paper.”
I’ve been saying for many years that the best thing you can do with the NY Times is line the bottom of your birdcage with it.
The deranged Left is in a total panic.
They better get use to it. Pence could be President after Trump for another 4 to 8 years, followed by Donald Trump, Jr.
Since so many people are apparently incapable of figuring out what to think about any issue until the New York Times has weighed in and told them what to think, this could be a major deal.
Maybe this is just laying the early groundwork against VP Pence's presumptive head start at being the R candidate for President in 2024, or maybe it's part of 'their' plan to start edging their loony base away from the cliff to prepare them for when it becomes undeniable that they will not get to see President Trump impeached.
What do you expect from the bigots at the NYT?
Let’s count the ways liberals can hate Mike Pence .... white, male, straight, Christian, pro-life, conservative, Republican, moral, clean, neat ....
Aultman, in the first clause of her statement summarizes the semantic trickery Liberals/Progressives knowingly used to implement their takeover of the minds of American citizens before 1973 in order to impose their population control method of destroying babies in order to facilitate the goals of socialism for America.
Please note especially the first paragraph highlighted and quoted below from the Liberty Fund Library "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay, "The Impracticability of Socialism":
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.An examination of the history of nations reveals the long and arduous struggle by human beings for individual liberty--from kings, from masters, from whatever description fitted those other human beings who gained power and exercised it over their fellow citizens.
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classesthe class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal lifeimperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive stridesbroadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
By whatever semantic maneuver those power holders chose to identify themselves, no matter how benevolent they purported to be, the end was the same: some individuals in the society or group were denied their Creator-endowed rights to be free.
In America, in the Year 1776, a genius group of freedom loving individuals declared a set of principles by which, if accepted, a society of like-minded individuals could enjoy "the pursuit of happiness."
Pence's stated position on protecting the lives and liberty of all of God's created beings runs counter to the ideology of Progressives.
But this is good. I want them to hesitate before laying violent hands on Donald Trump, and there is no better preventative than that they be quakingly afraid of ... (ominous music) PRESIDENT PENCE!! (insert picture of Handmaid here)
Concentration camps in the sense that one must concentrate upon not being vile.
running interference for traitors
days are numbered for the NYT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.