Public Outrage at Brazen Lying by NY Times Fuels Viral NRA Video

Give us a call NRA. We're happy to help.

Sun, Aug 6, 2017 | 5415 Comments

The over-the-top lying and dishonesty gushing out of the Times over the past years has infuriated many Americans, especially with their rather desperate attempts to smear Donald Trump before the election, and unseat him after it, with the ridiculous Russia-gate baloney.

Seeing an opportunity, the National Rifle Association has realized they can rally public support by calling out the Times on various 'fake news' stories they have pushed over the years.

Now the NRA probably doesn't think about Russia very much, except to the extent that Kalashnikov is a strong competitor, but we here at RI could certainly give them an earful about the obscene lying coming out of the Times about Russia, Ukraine, Syria, Russia-gate, Snowden, Assange, and on and on and on.

advertisement
It is no overstatement to call it criminal.

In a fair world, the Times' editorial board would be put in the stocks for a few weeks to be jeered at by a furious public, and then locked away for life.

That would be getting off easy. They literally have the blood of millions of innocents on their hands, from Iraq to Syria to Ukraine, and deserve much worse.

The NRA says it will 'fisk' the Times on various lies they have pushed over the years. I didn't know what that means, so I looked it up. It means to 'criticize and dispute a published argument'.

All good NRA, look, give us a call, we've got truckloads of dirt on what really is a criminal organization.

Enjoy this short version of the video below, or for even more satisfaction watch the longer version on the NRA website:

Here is the transcript of the full video: 

Recently The New York Times, in its bid to remain relevant and influential, tried to disrupt the narrative on "fake news" by promoting itself as truth.

Who are you fooling, New York Times?

NRATV responded to that garbage immediately, with a video of their own. And in response to that dose of truth, Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for The New York Times, said:

"Our commitment to the truth isn't new, it dates back 166 years. And each and every story mentioned in the NRA's video, from Benghazi to crime in Chicago, was covered in deep and rich detail by Times reporters."

Oh, New York Times?

Because on September 11, 2012 you ran with the fake news that the terror attack in Benghazi was caused by a 14-minute movie trailer on YouTube. You published that while men like Kris Paronto, John Tiegen and Mark Geist—contractors actually on the ground in Benghazi—set you straight that this was a terror attack.

In fact, New York Times, you ever dutiful shill for the left, you get major brownie points for continuing Hillary Clinton's debunked blame-game even after emails produced showed her admitting to her own daughter that this was not the result of a video, but rather a terror attack.

Please, tell me all about how you covered this story in "deep, rich detail" while you're embarrassing your profession by continuing a narrative that your boss lady has given up already.

"We're going to laser-focus on your so-called 'honest pursuit of truth.' In short, we're coming for you." - Dana Loesch


One more example on your "deep, rich detail," New York Times — you always blame the gun when publishing stories on the Chicago crime rate, and refuse to acknowledge the fall of the prosecution rate for felony crimes, you refuse to acknowledge when the Chicago Police Superintendent excoriated judges for making cops' jobs harder by releasing violent offenders over, and over, and over again.

Story after story — to say nothing of your inability to delve into that "deep, rich detail" when using the term "assault rifle" as your undefinable, go-to scary buzzword for all guns.

"We the people" have had it.

We've had it with your narratives, your propaganda, your fake news.

We've had it with your constant protection of your democrat overlords, your refusal to acknowledge any truth that upsets the fragile construct that you believe is real life.

And we've had it with your pretentious, tone-deaf assertion that you are in any way truth or fact-based journalism.

Consider this the shot across your proverbial bow.

We are going to fisk the The New York Times and find out just what "deep and rich" means to this old gray hag, this untrustworthy, dishonest rag that has subsisted on the welfare of mediocrity for one, two, three, more decades.

We're going to laser-focus on your so-called "honest pursuit of truth."

In short, we're coming for you.

We couldn't agree more!

advertisement

Click here for our commenting guidelines