Counterculture Con HQ

April 12, 2010

The New York Times wants to bag a Pope

It’s been over 35 years since Watergate.  The Lib Media goes big game hunting again.

The New York Times is on the hunt, seeking the biggest prey since Woodward and Bernstein brought down Richard Nixon. The Gray Lady wants to sink her claws into the pope. The Boston Globe, owned by the New York Times Co., won a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for its investigative reporting on sexual abuse of minors by priests. Anything the Times does now as a follow-up would be “been there, done that” — unless the paper managed to implicate Pope Benedict XVI.

The problem, however, for the newspaper that thinks of itself as “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is that this isn’t, as the Times coverage would have us believe, a story about an age-old institution being exposed as corrupt from the bottom all the way to the top.

The real story is the American left’s agenda to undermine all traditional institutions in this country, with establishment media outlets like the Times and Newsweek leading the feeding frenzy.

William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, describes the politics of the thirst for papal blood: “Issues like abortion, gay marriage and women’s ordination — that’s what’s really driving them mad, and that’s why they are on the hunt. Those who doubt this to be true need to ask why the debt-ridden Times does not spend the same resources looking for dirt in other institutions that occurred a half-century ago.”

Long ago is right, when it comes to the vast majority of abuse incidents by Catholic clergy. Thirty years ago, annual abuse incidents approached 800 in number; for the year 2009 the claims against 40,000 U.S. priests and tens of thousands of others come to a grand total of six — astoundingly small for an institution the size of the Catholic Church.

That decline is not happenstance. The U.S. Catholic Church has long had in place a zero tolerance policy against predators wearing the collar. The U.S. bishops’ Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People codifies that “when even a single act of sexual abuse by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants.”

The U.S. bishops even sponsored an independent investigation by John Jay College of Criminal Justice on “the Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons” going back to the 1950s. That analysis concluded that “those dioceses in which church leaders took prompt and decisive action had fewer reports of abuse and fewer reports of severe abuse.”


The Times will leave no stone unturned in it’s quest to bag itself a Pope.  Mind you, these are generally the same people who think child rapist Roman Polansky is some kind of hero.  Meanwhile, these are some of things the New York Times is busy sweeping under the rug:

The New York Times, and That Business At the Cathedral In Cordoba

[T]he New York Times over nearly the last decade has done nothing to enlighten its readers about the ideology of Islam. If you read the Times every day, faithfully, from 9/11/2001 on to today, you still would not know what the word “Hadith” means or what an “isnad-chain” is. You still would not be able to define the word “Sunnah.” You still would not know that Muhammad is regarded as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, and the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, or why it matters. You still would not know about little Aisha, and why Muhammad’s “marriage” to her when she was nine years old had consequences in the Islamic Republic of Iran when Khomeini came to power, and still has permanent consequences for girls all over the Muslim-ruled lands.

You would not, if you dutifully read the preening and pridefully o’erweening New York Times every day since 9/11/2001, know what the word “dhimmi” really means. You would be unable to discuss in any detail what was required of “dhimmis” (that is, the subset of non-Muslims, or Infidels, who were allowed at least to live, and even practice their religion, under Muslim rule, in the lands conquered by Muslims, as long as a series of onerous duties, economic and social, were fulfilled). You would not know what the word “Jizyah” truly meant, and how different it was from merely being a “tax” given the deliberate conditions of humiliation with which it had ideally to be paid.


Read the rest.  It’s a textbook deconstruction of the Lib Media, using the New York Times’s coverage of the Cordoba Cathedral story, which I blogged a few days ago.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: