WyBlog, the best thing about New Jersey since the invention of the 24 hour diner.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan
CH 2.0 Info Center
The Jersey Report
Labor Union Report
Net Right Nation
The Patriot Post Newsletter
Victor Davis Hanson
J! E! T! S! Jets! Jets! Jets!
NJ.com Caldwell Forum
The Caldwells Patch
The Jersey Tomato Press
"This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes."
#VRWC RSS feed:News Ticker Widget
Today the uber-liberal Star-Ledger Editorial Board posted an opinion piece chastising Donald Trump for wanting to imprison flag burners.
In another pre-dawn Twitter purge, Donald Trump said our allegedly great democracy should throw flag-burners in jail or strip them of their citizenship.
One might dismiss this as visceral nonsense or just a shiny object for someone with the attention span of a compulsive 8-year-old, or maybe a distraction to keep his list of conflicts out of the news for few hours.
Actually, that tweet should be taken very seriously, not only because he needs to learn about the First and Fourteenth amendments, but because it captures how our next president feels about something as fundamental as freedom of expression.
OK, cool. It's their right. And they've got an endless supply of pixels.
Except, that "freedom of expression" thing doesn't apply to their comments section.
Here's what I posted:
How does the SLEB feel about Koran burning?
And Editor in Chief Tommy The Commie Moran deleted it faster than Hillary Clinton erased her email server.
Because liberals love flag burners. But they hate being called out for their hypocrisy. And nothing emphasizes their hypocrisy more than burning a Koran, which as we all know is a Hate Crime of epic proportions, and requires denunciation of Islamophobia as a matter of principle.
Except their Islamophobia is another man's anti-Americanism. And you can't get more anti-American than burning Old Glory.
Alas we don't blow shit up when our flag gets torched.
But wait, it's time for the pot to meet the kettle.
These are all attempts to delegitimize - and even criminalize - political opinion he doesn't share.
Because it's not like the SLEB and their lefty friends have spent decades deligitimizing, and the past 8 years criminalizing, opinions they don't share.
Oh, wait, yes it is. They're the real fascists.
In New York City it is illegal, punishable by massive fines, to refer to a "transgender" person by anything other than its preferred pronoun. You know, because government needs to enshrine a constitutional right to mental illness.
Throughout the Old South monuments to Confederate heroes are being torn down in the name of "tolerance." It's a Hate Crime to fly the Stars and Bars. But I suppose burning one is A-OK, right SLEB?
Across the length and breadth of this great nation it is illegal to refuse to bake a gay "wedding" cake.
And coincidentally today, the homofascist mafia has set their sights on Chip and Joanna Gaines, for the unforgivable crime of attending a church which condemns same-sex "marriage." A more wholesome couple you won't find, anywhere. There could be no better role models for our children, or their parents. They are the very embodiment of loving, caring, goodness.
But, gack!, they're "anti-gay!"
Chip and Joanna (and in fact all Christians) are the enemy, they cannot be allowed to earn a living or star in a widely popular TV show. Their thoughtcrimes are repulsive. The death penalty must be the only option.
That's the mentality the Star-Ledger defends whilst vilifying Donald Trump and erasing comments which do not conform to their progressive worldview.
And they wonder why no one, including me, subscribes to their rag anymore.
The White House Correspondents Association has it's collective panties in a knot because President-elect Trump doesn't consult them, ever.
"The White House Correspondents' Association is deeply concerned by President-elect Donald Trump's decision to reject the practice of traveling with a "protective pool" of reporters for his first visit to Washington since the election," White House Correspondents Association President Jeff Mason said in a statement. "In addition to breaking with decades of historical precedent and First Amendment principles, this decision could leave Americans blind about his whereabouts and well-being in the event of a national crisis. A pool of reporters is in place and ready to cover President-elect Trump. The WHCA urges President-elect Trump to allow it to do its job, including being present for motorcade movements, meetings, and other interactions. Not allowing a pool of journalists to travel with and cover the next president of the United States is unacceptable."
Listen up you sanctimonious stenographer for the DNC, President-elect Trump knows where your loyalties lie, because they most certainly do not lie with "First Amendment principles." You hacks have no principles. You exposed yourselves as whoring cheerleaders for progressive Democrats and now you demand that the object of your derision bow before your preening self-importance?
Let's get something straight sport. You need Trump. Trump doesn't need you.
There's plenty of alternative media. And a good portion of that media isn't permeated by left-wing bias. Which is how Trump became President-elect in spite of your best efforts to coronate Hillary Clinton.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Thursday that he would tell the Trump transition team that it has "a responsibility to communicate with the White House press corps."
Got a Constitutional citation for that "responsibility" Josh?
Didn't think so.
I have a feeling that President Trump will find a way to get his message out just fine, without filtering it through the JournoList clown show.
"Having a pool of reporters follow you around everywhere you go is inconvenient, occasionally annoying and takes a long time to get used to, but it serves an important purpose," Earnest said during the daily briefing. "And this White House has gone to great lengths to coordinate with all of you as you organize that effort and I would recommend that the incoming administration do the same."
The operative word there being "coordinate." We know all about the MSM / DNC coordination that's been going on. So tell me Mr. Journalist, will Glenn Thrush send his stories to President Trump for pre-approval? Will CNN secretly share their interview questions with him in advance? Will the LA Times bury an unflattering tape of his remarks?
I suspect not.
Because in the end your credibility is shot, beyond repair. Your elitist disdain for Trump and his voters cannot be denied. Like I said, he doesn't need you. And there really is no good reason he should even throw you a bone. I hope he banishes each and every one of you pressitutes to the wilderness where you can flounder in a pool of lost subscribers and diminishing revenue.
The MSM is dead, of a self-inflicted wound.
Much hay is being made today about how sanctimonious Obama administration "foreign policy advisor without any actual foreign policy experience" Ben Rhodes snookered Americans into supporting the disastrous Iran nuclear deal.
And this Rhodes fellow surely is a piece of work. He created a panoply of astroturf "experts" and fake Twitter feeds to disseminate a plethora of fabrications supporting his boss's policy. How did he get away with it?
Because the people he was feeding it to are a bunch of naive know-nothings.
"All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
We literally have a media that doesn't know what it doesn't know.
And worse, an American public that by and large doesn't care.
These know-nothings are given the power to shape our policy discussions and sway public opinion because they're educated, having graduated from Ivy League bastions of liberal indoctrination.
Harvard and its academic siblings, American culture's spoiled institutional trust fund children, fully intend to safeguard their position as the conformity factories manufacturing America's leadership class. They are an assembly line of indoctrination that bolts together elitists out of socialism, amorality and entitlement, and then sets them loose on American society reeking of that new snob smell.
When I grew up in the 1970s the mantra was "question authority."
Today's kids are force-fed appeals to authority. From "climate change" to "tolerance" they are being told what to think and no one is teaching them how to think. Is it any wonder then that our politics are so polarized?
As traditionally conceived, liberal education would temper the all-too-common tendency to demonize those fellow citizens with whom we disagree. In no small measure, the value of a liberal education — to the individual and to the public — stems from the ability it cultivates to explore moral and political questions from a variety of viewpoints. This virtue entails putting oneself in another's shoes. It promotes toleration, civility, and mutual respect. In "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill called this the virtue of "many-sidedness."
Ben Rhodes and his ilk are the antithesis of John Stuart Mill.
However, as currently practiced at our leading colleges and universities — through which a disproportionate percentage of our elites pass — liberal education cultivates single-sidedness and reinforces the polarization of our politics. The campus assault on free speech, the abandonment of the fundamental requirements of due process in university disciplinary procedures regarding accusations of sexual misconduct, and the hollowing and politicizing of the curriculum have become distressingly entrenched features of academic life. Their toxic effects are harming the country.
Those who have failed to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
We now live in an age where all ideas are considered equally valid. Why? Because, feelings. "I feel" has replaced "I think."
I feel, therefore I am, uh, valid, or something, said Voltaire, in a Common Core history lesson detailing the French revolution's disparate impact on transgender people of color.
It's impossible to have a rational discussion if the other person equates disagreement with hurting their feelings.
So my opposition to Obama's policies is automatically racism. Investigating potential terrorists is de facto evidence of Islamophobia. My support for traditional marriage and living my Catholic faith must be due to my hatred of homosexuals. End of discussion. There can be no other reason, because, feelings.
Feelings begat Bernie Sanders. And coed bathrooms. The right to not be
offended trumps the Constitution now. Give me
liberty a Safe
Space, or give me, well, certainly not death. Extra cookies perhaps.
Meanwhile the perpetually aggrieved willingly submit to authority, because authority pays lip service to all those things that make them feel good about themselves. Hard truths make people uncomfortable, and look!, it's Kim Kardashian!
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Bruce Jenner is a woman.
This image was recently posted to Facebook, seen as one of those "a friend of a friend liked this" things that oftentimes pop up, tagged "I'm proud of my political ignorance."
I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry.
This person votes.
And she is, of course, hardly unique.
She is also Ben Rhodes', and his media sycophants', target audience.
I'm sure all her friends consider her to be a Model Citizen too.
The problem with our nation isn't that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will succeed Barack Obama as our next president.
The problem with our nation is an education system that produced a citizenry willing to elect Barack Obama and then accept Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton as our next president.
They don't know what they don't know. Which is exactly how the pupppet masters
Once again I am damn glad I no longer subscribe to Tommy The Commie's Star-Ledger. Today's editorial chastising opponents of Islamic Sharia law is arguably the most idiotic item he's ever published.
After getting himself into a lather over folks who can't see themselves rewriting the Constitution to please Allah, he comes up with this gem:
"And Ted Cruz claimed that Islamic terrorism is our greatest threat," Sues added, "when statistics show over the last 10 years that Americans were more likely to die from choking on peach pits."
We checked. He's right.
Good. Freaking. Grief.
Ten years? As in after that little incident involving some planes landing in Lower Manhattan? I'm sure the Star-Ledger covered it; although probably not on Page 1, seeing as how that's usually devoted to their never-ending series extolling the virtues of gun control.
But, still… Someone there should have thought to mention 9/11, right?
Their zeal to slander Ted Cruz (and all Republicans) while sucking up to the enemies of freedom means they, like their messianic president, can't bring themselves to admit the existence of Islamic terrorism. Even when it kills 3,000 innocent victims on national television.
Peach pits. There's the Real Menace.
I suppose that if I were to invent a gun that fired peach pits, the Star-Ledger newsroom would convulse in synchronized apoplexy.
One can only hope that Obama has asked Joe Biden to take the lead on eradicating the Peach Pit Scourge. We must act, and act now! Because surely that's more important than curing cancer, or defeating the Mohammedan hordes.
Or so Tom Moran would have us believe.
I wonder what color the sky is on his planet.
Hey, isn't this a great time to cut the army to its lowest level since before World War II? Because that's what Dear Leader is doing. And Pinch Sulzberger's Pravda on the Hudson is giddy:
The Army's plan to cut 40,000 troops, as well as 17,000 civilian employees, over the next two years is unsettling many American communities. Congressmen and senators in the affected districts are railing against the reductions and insisting they will fight to reverse them. But the cutbacks are a sensible and necessary move.
Obama is reducing our active duty army from 570,000 troops to a pre-WWII level of 450,000. Because getting caught flat-footed again isn't something he worries about.
And the guys who signed up to serve their country? Yeah, it sucks to be them.
President Obama needs to make sure the Army is well positioned to do its job, but that does not mean maintaining bases and a level of troops that go beyond what the country needs and can afford.
Lavish social programs? Wealth redistribution? Obamacare subsidies? Green energy boondoggles? Obama doesn't care what that stuff costs. But his media sycophants are suddenly worried about cost containment when it comes to defending us from Islamofascists, Iranians, Russians, and probably Chinese too?
One can only conclude that these progressive bozos want to see us conquered.
I guess they're planning to be the Vichy Americans, and in their minds,
Will MSNBC's last viewer please change the channel?
Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse for MSNBC, along came the quarterly ratings reports.
In both daytime and prime time, MSNBC endured its lowest quarterly demo numbers in a decade, and its total viewership since the final quarter of 2007. Prime-time viewership was down 45 percent in the demo from the first quarter of 2014, while daytime viewership was down 39 percent in the demo.
Between the hours of 12 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Monday, for instance, more people were watching Al Jazeera America than MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, Thomas Roberts and "The Cycle."
Sucking up to terrorists and libtards is not a winning strategy.
The Big Kahuna in the ratings war? Fox News! For the 53rd consecutive quarter.
With its 53rd consecutive quarter total audience win, Fox News Channel saw a 10% primetime rise among adults 25-54 in first-quarter 2015 over last year. In fact, with 321,000 on average among the 25-54s in primetime, Fox News thrashed rivals CNN (187,000) and MSNBC (132,000) with more news demo viewers than the other two combined, according to Nielsen.
In fact, Fox News had the five top watched and rated shows on cable news for the quarter. Again. Leading the pack? Bill O'Reilly. Meanwhile, Rachel Madcow fell to 26th place, behind reruns of Bill O'Reilly.
Their own families don't watch MSNBC.
At some point the poobahs at Comcast will have to put profits ahead of ideology. At least I think they will. Who knows? They're obviously in the tank for the Hilldebeest, and if she wins, running MSNBC at a loss is probably cheaper than writing checks to the Clinton Foundation.
Still, it warms my heart to see the looney lefties down for the count. Their shrillness echoes so loudly because there are so few of them to absorb it, not because their message is powerful or noteworthy.
If a cable news network bloviates in the forest, and there's no one around
to hear it, does it even matter anymore?
Perhaps here's one reason why President Golf Pants didn't attend that Paris anti-terrorism rally — he doesn't want the media publishing stuff that offends Muslims. It's too dangerous.
President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation's journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation's defenses forces, the White House's press secretary said Jan. 12.
"The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform" whenever journalists' work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House s daily briefing.
The unprecedented reversal of Americans' civil-military relations, and of the president's duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration's opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
The White House voiced its objections in 2012 after the magazine's office were burned by jihadis, followings its publication of anti-jihadi cartoons.
Earnest's defense of tho 2012 objections came just five days after the magazine's office was attacked by additional jihadis. Eight journalists, two policeman and a visitor were murdered by two French-born Muslims who objected to the magazine's criticism of Islam's final prophet.
In other words, shut up or you'll make the Muzzies angry. Because if you make them angry, they'll hurt you. And, stunningly, if they hurt you, your president won't do anything about that.
Throughout the press conference, Earnest repeatedly said the media would be able to decide on its own whether to publish pictures, articles or facts that could prompt another murderous jihad attack by Muslim against journalists.
But he did not say that his government has a constitutional and moral duty to use the nation's huge military to protect journalists from armed jihadis, but instead hinted strongly that journalists should submit to jihadi threats.
"I think that there are any number of reasons that [U.S.] media organizations have made a decision not to reprint the cartoons" after the January attack, he said. "In some cases, maybe they were concerned about their physical safety. In other cases, they were exercising some judgment in a different way. So we certainly would leave it to media organizations to make a decision like this."
"What I m saying is that individual news organizations have to assess that risk for themselves," he said. "I think the point in the mind of the president and certainly everybody here at the White House is that that is a question that should be answered by journalists."
Nice little newspaper you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
Barack Obama is a traitor to our Constitution. Every president's first "moral responsibility" is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, where free speech and freedom of the press are sacrosanct. But Obama's highly questionable morality sends him in the opposite direction, into the arms of freedom's enemies.
He's a coward, spineless in the face of murderous thugs. Unwilling to stand up for what's right. Committed to appeasement in the name of expediency.
Hey President Quisling, Fuck You. And the camel you rode in on.
One more thing Barry. Here's a Muslim with more balls than you.
Mayor Aboutaleb said: "It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom… But if you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake pack your bags and leave."
"There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself, be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists. And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off."
"This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here. All those well-meaning Muslims here will now be stared at."
Islam is a virus. Freedom is the only cure.
It disgusts me that a majority of the people in this country voted for a
gutless so-called "leader." America used to be better than that.
For the past 3 months reruns of "Shark Tank" beat out every show on MSNBC. Oh, and Fox News is still #1.
No one would say the summer of 2014 suffered any shortage of breaking news.
From the crisis in Ferguson, Mo., to the cultural impact of Robin Williams' and Joan Rivers' sudden deaths and all the way up to recent round-the-clock coverage of U.S. strikes on ISIS, cable news has been heavily occupied. The last three months have been so big, Fox News Channel just clocked its first quarter with the most-watched primetime across all of cable in more than a decade — even besting USA and ESPN.
The average 1.79 million viewers between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m., Monday through Friday, gave FNC its first quarter atop the dial since the Iraq War broke out in 2003.
CNN's gains from the comparable quarter last year were modest, but they were still gains. Its 186,000 adults 18-49 in primetime (8-11 p.m.) marked a 4 percent improvement and even outpaced MSNBC — now back in third place. MSNBC, still holding slight second-place edge in total viewers, was down 21 percent in the key demo compared to last year. Pulling just an average 150,000 adults 25-54 in primetime, it meant quarterly lows for Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell in the key demo.
The wondrous anomaly of Shark Tank encores also continues. With the ABC reality competition in heavy off-net rotation on CBNBC, those repeats are outperforming much of cable news and ranking No. 14 in primetime where adults 25-54 are concerned — besting every telecast on MSNBC.
Can you guys hear me laughing? 'Cause I'm rolling here. The Obamunist preenings of Rachel Madcow & Co. draw fewer viewers than reruns of a show devoted to naked capitalism. That's gotta hurt.
Then, in a burst of schadenfreude synchronicity, we see that Pinch Sulzberger's Pravda is sacking another 100 reporters.
The New York Times Co. said Wednesday it plans to cut about 100 newsroom jobs through buyouts, and perhaps layoffs, to cut costs and shift more resources to digital news products.
The company, whose advertising revenue fell 4% year-over-year in the most recent quarter, will offer buyouts to employees at its editorial and business operations. If not enough employees take the offer, it will resort to layoffs.
"The job losses are necessary to control our costs and to allow us to continue to invest in the digital future of The New York Times, but we know that they will be painful both for the individuals affected and for their colleagues," said newspaper publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and company CEO Mark Thompson in a note to the staff.
Except, their "digital future" isn't looking too good either.
They also announced that the company will shut down NYT Opinion, a recently launched mobile app for opinion content, because it wasn't getting enough subscribers.
Folks aren't willing to pay for Obamunist claptrap emailed to them 24x7? Well sure, it's available for free on MSNBC, and we've already seen how well they're doing…
If only there was a news outlet that was successful, one the Times
could emulate, and maybe cash in on millions of new subscribers. I wonder
if Carlos Slim has Rupert Murdoch's phone number?
To be fair, the First Amendment enjoins Congress from restricting freedom of the press. I just never expected to see our legions of wannabe Woodwards and Bernsteins acquiesce so easily to White House censorship.
White House press-pool reports are supposed to be the news media's eyes and ears on the president, an independent chronicle of his public activities. They are written by reporters for other reporters, who incorporate them into news articles about President Obama almost every day.
Sometimes, however, the White House plays an unseen role in shaping the story.
Journalists who cover the White House say Obama's press aides have demanded — and received — changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists. They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction.
The system is set up to incorporate censorship. Reporters send their stories to the White House Press Office, and the White House sends them on to the national and international media.
After careful vetting by the Ministry of Propaganda, of course.
So when Instapundit calls reporters "Democratic Party operatives with bylines" he's hitting pretty close to the mark. The media goes along because everybody is on the same team.
And it's easy to understand why CBS ditched Sharyl Attkisson, because she didn't toe the Obama Administration line on Benghazi. CBS News President David Rhodes has a brother named Ben. Ben Rhodes is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication, ie, Director of the Ministry of Propaganda.
Did you know that it was Ben Rhodes who rewrote the Benghazi "talking points" given to Susan Rice, deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack?
Gee, I wonder why you never read about that in the papers.
And the least trusted name in news? MSNBC.
Rachel Maddow's viewer was unavailable for comment. But Toure Neblett was overheard muttering about racism and reparations for having to suffer exposure to actual facts. Ed Schultz remains blubbering incoherently in the corner, awaiting further instructions from Valerie Jarrett.
Even Jon Stewart's comedy gig beat out the Al Sharpton Network. That's gotta hurt.
And with all the tax dollars we throw at public television you'd think it would rank higher in trust than with a mere 12% of the population. Nope. Maybe we should rethink our "investment," before somebody starts taking them seriously.
Meanwhile, Fox News is also the
most profitable news network. Purely coincidentally, I'm sure!
Single-handledly, I might add. Just look at the headline, and the photo below it.
The article makes it clear — if the Koch Brothers aren't prevented from using their money to influence politics, PEOPLE WILL DIE! Nevermind that they're fifty-ninth on the all-time donation list, behind at least 18 different labor unions.
Because progressive groups who spend money on politics are knights in shining armor with hearts of gold. It's only evil rethuglicans who thwart the forces of light with their dirty oil money. And just to make sure we know which side the Ledger is on, here's the highlighted quote:
The Koch brothers are not only affecting elections and thwarting governance; they are hurting human beings.
Got it? The Koch brothers kill people. With their bare hands, while cackling malevolently too.
The mendacity of the Ledger's blood libel is staggering. And par for the course.
Harry Reid couldn't have said it better himself. And come to think of it, he probably did, while giving the Ledger their marching orders.
Elsewhere in the paper, it's noted that Obamacare has forced thousands of low-income New Jersey children off of their state-subsidized health care plan. This is presumably for their own good, and if their parents have to pay three or 4 times as much for less coverage, well, that's not really "hurting human beings." Mainly because Obama said it isn't, and the Ledger never contradicts their Dear Leader.
Then, right below the despicable blood libel, there's the ever-laughable Paul Mulshine, lamenting the most recent round of layoffs at his den of bylined democratic party operatives, while disparaging bloggers in general, and Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit in particular.
The typical blogger doesn't want to sit in a zoning board meeting writing about variances. If he's a left-winger, he's sitting in front of his computer railing about how the Koch brothers are ruining the ozone layer. If he's a right-winger, he's complaining about Benghazi while misspelling it.
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Right below a mendacious screed against the Koch Brothers, here's Mulshine whinging about bloggers who don't attend zoning board meetings, as if that's the ticket to entry into the world of Real Journalism.
Have you ever seen a Star-Ledger article about a zoning board meeting?
Nope, didn't think so.
They're too busy doing Harry Reid's bidding.
In a grim day of reckoning at the state's largest newspaper, the owners of The Star-Ledger today said they were eliminating the jobs of approximately 167 people, including 25 percent of the newsroom.
The sweeping job loss was part of a plan announced last week in an effort to greatly reduce costs and combine resources by consolidating the operations of The Star-Ledger, along with its sister publications in New Jersey and its online partner, NJ.com, which also announced cutbacks today.
The Star-Ledger, which has won three Pulitzer Prizes and several national awards, currently has 750 employees, of which approximately 500 are non unionized. None of the cuts announced today will affect unionized personnel, who are covered under existing labor contracts.
The cuts will mean the loss of 40 of the 156 reporters, editors, photographers and support staff in The Star-Ledger newsroom, which had already seen a parade of people leaving in recent weeks over concerns about the paper's future and the continuing fiscal pressures affecting newspapers across the country. One of those leaving voluntarily had been slated to be cut.
Elsewhere at the Newark-based paper, where whole offices now stand vacant, attesting to tremendous loss of personnel through buyouts and earlier layoffs, 127 more are losing their jobs across all departments.
You just don't need a big staff when your main purpose is regurgitating Obama Administration and DNC talking points. Sorry it took so long for you guys to figure that out.
But take heart, the Ministry of Propaganda is throwing a few of you a bone.
Those being let go will not necessarily leave immediately. In packets that were being handed out this morning, those being told their jobs were being eliminated were offered severance packages if they agreed to stay with the newspaper until NJ Advance Media, new media company being formed, is up and running.
Star-Ledger employees receiving offer letters of jobs with the new company in some cases were being given different positions or titles, some at lower pay. They will have a week to decide to accept the offer, the offer letters said.
Obamanomics! Do the same job for lower pay. Welcome to the club.
As for the rest of you, didn't Joe Biden say that losing your job gives you "more freedom?"
Oh, right, you guys are liberals, you don't like Freedom. Sucks to be you!
Another 124 full- and part-time jobs were eliminated at the company's weekly newspapers and at the dailies in Trenton, Easton, and South Jersey. At NJ.com, 15 of 77 employees were let go. The day's toll across all Advance properties came to 306 layoffs.
The Obamabot chickens have come home to roost.
This just in, regurgitating progressive talking points just isn't as profitable as the True Believers want it to be. MSNBC is circling the drain, and the Newark Star-Ledger isn't far behind.
Yesterday New Jersey's largest daily newspaper announced another round of layoffs, and the formation of a new media company to strategically manage their decline into irrelevance.
In a reflection of the changes sweeping across the news industry, the owners of The Star-Ledger today announced the formation of a new media company that will provide content, advertising and marketing services to the state's largest newspaper, its sister publications and NJ.com.
The new company, NJ Advance Media, will begin offering sales and marketing services for The Star-Ledger and NJ.com in June. It will begin providing news, photos, videos, features and other content by September, company executives said.
The move is expected to cost the jobs of an unspecified number of employees across most or all departments, including the newsroom. The Star-Ledger and other dailies owned by Advance Publications in New Jersey and Pennsylvania will continue to publish seven days a week, the executives said.
By consolidating services and eliminating positions, the company expects to see significant savings at a time of great upheaval for the newspaper industry, which has struggled to remain profitable as advertising dollars migrated to the internet or evaporated outright in the recent recession.
Hey, you know who's not losing money? Fox News.
You guys might want to wonder why that is, instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Company officials say the reorganization will better position the newspapers and NJ.com to survive the changes in the way consumers get their news. As an example, they said, the number of full-time reporters, columnists and photographers at NJ Advance Media is expected to be larger than the number now at both The Star-Ledger and NJ.com.
The officials did not say how those gains would be achieved. It's possible the new company will absorb staff members from other Advance newspapers or hire new journalists following the layoffs.
They're retaining the same management though, because really, who else is qualified to lead them into the abyss?
The Star-Ledger's editor, Kevin Whitmer, will remain a key figure in the news operation, serving as editor and vice president of content at NJ Advance Media. Lamar Graham, now NJ.com's chief content officer, will serve as a vice president of audience development.
Others in management positions include Barb Chodos and Steve Alessi, both of whom will serve as vice presidents of sales. Chodos is currently NJ.com's general manager. Alessi is a vice president of sales for The Star-Ledger and NJ.com.
Keep plucking that chicken fellas.
The moonbats at Moms Demand Action are pressuring Facebook to ban gun-themed fan pages. Because pictures of guns kill people.
This, at least, is the premise of a new gun-control petition, in which the entertainingly neurotic founder of Moms Demand Action, Shannon Watts, complains that "Facebook and Instagram are currently being used to facilitate sales and trades of firearms between private sellers." In consequence, Watts and her cohorts are calling for the company to "ban gun-themed fan pages on the site," technology website VentureBeat confirmed yesterday. Thus far, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a few drearily predictable celebrities, and nearly 100,000 Americans have added their names to the supplication.
To their credit, Facebook appears to be unwilling to go along. For now.
As a spokesman for Facebook noted with barely disguised irritation, "you can't buy things on Instagram and Facebook, nor can you promote the sale or use of weapons in advertising."
Ah, but the moonbats will have you believe that talking about legal behavior will of course lead to illegal activity.
Federal law enforcement sources . . . view Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms "as emerging threats for unlawful gun transactions in the United States."
Next up, Michelle Obama views Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms as emerging threats for childhood obesity, because people post pictures of their food. And everybody knows that seeing a picture of yummy buffalo wings makes us run right out and eat a plate of yummy buffalo wings. With extra sauce.
Except, you know, it doesn't. Nor do pictures of guns turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into crazed killers. Listening to Nancy Pelosi's speeches on the other hand...
The moonbat moms are losing the public opinion wars. People like the Second Amendment. They like it a lot more than they like a bunch of harpies deciding who can, and cannot post on Facebook.
But the authoritarians won't be easily deterred. They're hell-bent on control. And they're not content to impose their neurotic nonsense on their own children. No, in their minds we are all their charges, and guns are today's bogeymen. Remember Reefer Madness? Yeah, the hysteria promulgated by Moms Demand Action is even more over the top.
Pictures of food don't make you fat. And talkiing about guns won't turn you
into an extra from Pulp Fiction. The anti-gun people believe you
should live in fear. And I do. I live in fear of them.
Yup, they're spinning so fast, I'm getting dizzy.
What Chris Christie bridge scandal? Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi: Editorial
Somehow, the right's response to Chris Christie's still-breaking Bridgegate scandal has devolved into this: Why are you writing about New Jersey traffic jams, because Benghazi!
In letters to newspapers and online comments, in phone calls to their favorite conservative radio and TV pundits, conservatives are in a state of collective denial: They refuse to acknowledge there's anything to Gov. Chris Christie and the George Washington Bridge scandal until President Obama and the consular attack in Benghazi get equal time.
Whack that straw-man! I know these are merely journalists, so reading comprehension might not be their strong suit, but let's try explaining this one more time.
Bridgegate is getting more than 17 times the media coverage Benghazi ever got.
That's our beef. Do your jobs fellas. Do it impartially.
What's that? Oh, right, you've got excuses.
What's the difference? Here are three reasons the unrelated Bridgegate and Benghazi stories aren't getting equal time — and shouldn't.
Intent: America's press corps has looked at Benghazi, the IRS scandal and the other Obama-related scandals tossed around last weekend. In each case, the facts dampened the early cries of conspiracy and cover-up. In Benghazi, neither congressional investigators nor the New York Times found evidence to support the idea of a concerted executive branch failure or cover-up. In the IRS fiasco, an investigation found both conservative and liberal political groups were subject to review — and everyone got what they wanted, anyway.
Hoo boy, there's so much BS in there it's scary.
But if you still think the New York Times has any credibility when it comes to assiduously reporting on the evils of socialist government, I've got 14 million dead Ukrainians who'll vigorously disagree with you.
The bottom line? We still don't know what Obama was doing that night. We still don't know why a rescue wasn't mounted, or authorized. And unlike Bridgegate, Obama hasn't held a single person accountable.
As for the IRS scandal, timing is everything. And in the run-up to the 2012 election, the IRS doggedly pursued every Conservative group in America, diverting these groups' limited resources into fighting a partisan bureaucracy. Which of course prevented them from working to defeat Barack Obama. OK, sure, the IRS eventually relented and granted tax esempt status to everybody, after the election, when it didn't matter anymore.
A study by The American Enterprise Institute found that those IRS witch hunts suppressed conservative / Republican turnout by between 5 and 8.5 million voters. Obama won by about 5 million votes. Do the math.
So, what about Excuse #2?
Coverage: It's hard to argue that Benghazi, the IRS scandal or Obamacare's glitchy website weren't covered in full. Each story was subject to intense coverage when it broke — just as Bridgegate is breaking now. To expect coverage of old stories to increase because of an uncomfortable new story is silly.
Oh, c'mon. The liberal media hasn't assigned this many reporters to a story since the time they staked out Sarah Palin's garbage cans.
And at the risk of repeating myself, in one week Bridgegate has garnered 17 times more coverage than Benghazi has gotten, ever. Why? Because the media is Obama. They're 2 sides of the same coin. Believing that Obama is capable of duplicity is like believing they themselves are crooked.
In other words, they can't see the forest for the trees.
But Chris Christie? He's a Republican! He's evil! All their friends say so!
Onward to Excuse #3.
Cover-ups: Each scandal resuscitated by the right last week began with cover-up allegations that have faded under the bright lights of media coverage and federal investigation.
Meanwhile, new evidence that Christie's aides tried to cover their tracks is surfacing as thousands of newly released documents and e-mails are made public. None of the evidence suggests the governor was involved at that level, but there are a lot of questions about the GWB lane closures that still haven't been answered.
Obama promised us "the most transparent administration in history." How's that workin' out for you guys?
Here are 6 unanswered questions on Benghazi.
And 5 unanswered questions about the IRS scandal. Lois Lerner still hasn't testified. But the Ledger is more interested in how many times David Wildstein took the Fifth? Puh-lease.
You guys want coverups? How about Eric Holder's ridiculous "executive privilege" assertion over Congressional inquiries into Fast And Furious? And not for nothing, but if assigning one of your own campaign donors to investigate the IRS scandal isn't a coverup, I don't know what is.
Here are 20 scandals involving Democrats that are still unresolved.
Still gonna tell me Bridgegate is more important?
All the other papers have moved on.
Alex Rodriguez is today's headline fodder. It's time for the Star-Ledger
to stop flogging this dead horse.
Because now pretty much everyone in America knows who Phil Robertson is.
And they know what he stands for.
More importantly, by their actions on social media, and by their boycott of A&E and its sponsors, millions of Americans stood up and said "we agree with Phil."
The consensus is in. Homosexuality is yucky. But hey, if you're gonna do it, please do it privately, and leave us out of it.
That's not hatred. That's tolerance. Which of course is different from acceptance or endorsement. Unless you're a homofascist.
On the flipside, almost no one knows who Dan Savage is. And the average American couldn't pick a GLAAD goon out of a lineup if you held a gun to his head.
God is winning! And He works through A&E.
In the Beginning was The Word…
And today's word is Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk. Because A&E has totally reversed their "temporary suspension" of Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson. The free market has spoken, and profit trumps political correctness run amok every time.
Well that, and God. The Word of God was made flesh, and except in GLAAD headquarters and certain parts of Tenafly, NJ, the Truth of God's Word is immutable, regardless of what some idiot on MSNBC might tell you.
There is no Constitutional Right to not be offended. Because if there was, I'd be first in line touting the indignities thrown my way by gay goons preaching "tolerance." They hate the religious, and by projection assume we hate them. Alas their hatred has blinded them. I don't hate them, I pity them for the emptiness of their ignorance. And I pray for their salvation.
Phil Robertson never tried to impose his views on a single person. He spoke
from his heart, and he made it clear he held no ill will toward anyone. But
the vitriol hurled his way exposed homofascism as an ugly intolerant strain
of coercive groupthink. Alas, "diversity" does not mean conformity.
And the First Amendment guarantees Freedom of Religion, even if your
"religion" is buggery.
The people who employ Paul Krugman to lecture us on how our economy ought to work are also incredibly savvy investors.
In 1993 Pinch Sulzberger bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion dollars.
Today he sold it for $70 million.
Seven cents on the dollar.
Sounds about what a Keynesian government program produces in economic "stimulus," right? Because when a tax dollar goes to DC and only 7 cents comes out Herr Doktor Professor Krugman dances with glee around the multiplier tree.
Don't try to understand why. You don't have a Nobel Prize in economics.
But you could probably get one, I hear Krugman listed his on EBay for
7 cents on the dollar too.
Imagine nightly "wardrobe malfunctions," without repercussions. Because network television's race to the bottom will soon be complete, once the boob tube starts intentionally showing actual boobs, in prime-time, while children are watching. Sex. Nudity. Profanity. It's all going to be fair game when the FCC abolishes their broadcast indecency rules.
If you thought that our television channels were already saturated with enough sex, vulgarity and profanity you may want to brace yourself — the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is proposing changes to its guidelines which would allow more racy content to infiltrate the small screen — during hours when kids could tune in.
A public notice posted on the regulatory agency's website last month said that the Commission is launching a review that may end the prohibition of expletives and certain images of nudity on television. The FCC had first given the public until May 20, to weigh in on the hot-button issue, but that deadline was recently extended to June 19.
I guess the good news is they postponed the deadline from yesterday. The bad news is, you'll note I didn't say "if" the FCC abolishes their indecency rules.
We all know how this will play out, because sexualizing our children is part and parcel of the liberal agenda. They put Planned Parenthood in the classroom, promote homosexual activism day and night, and pass out comdoms and Plan B like candy. Co-opting children's television to promote the same agenda is their next logical step.
And don't try telling me it's about "freedom of speech" or some other
lofty-sounding principle, because the rules against showing smoking, drinking
alcohol, or taking drugs will remain in place. And God forbid TV shows
someone eating unhealthy food! But pornography and foul language are A-OK? Who
in their right mind believes that?
It's obvious that the media is in full-on damage control mode, pulling out all the stops to protect Dear Leader from the scandals swarming around his presidency. Today's Star-Ledger trumpeted the headline — IRS Probe Ignored Most Influential Groups. Because it's not really a scandal if they only went after little guys. The Real Problem is they "ignored" Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers.
"The IRS goes AWOL when wealthy and powerful forces want to break the law in order to hide their wrongful efforts and secret political influence," said Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat who is among a small Senate group pushing campaign finance reform measures that would force these big outside groups to disclose their donors. "Picking on the little guy is a pretty lousy thing to do."
Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity were among those that spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads and get-out-the-vote efforts to help Republicans.
And yet those groups so far have escaped investigations into whether they have crossed the blurry line under the law between what constitutes a tax-exempt "social welfare" organization that is free from donor reporting requirements and a political committee subject to taxes and disclosures.
See, the problem isn't that the IRS targeted conservative groups; the problem is that the IRS targeted the wrong conservative groups! Why did they waste their time on the small potatoes when shutting down those evil Koch Brothers would have been much more effective? The IRS wasn't malevolent; they were inefficient!
Is that a great spin or what?
And by the way, the link above goes to the Puffington Host, because the
Ledger almost never puts these hatchet jobs on their web site.
Otherwise folks like me could call them out for their mendacity in the
comments and Tom Moran really doesn't like that.