How's this for irony?

Did you know that the first recorded purchase of a machine gun (OK, it was a Gatling gun, which is technically not a machine gun) by a private citizen was made by H.J. Raymond, proprietor of a newspaper, our of fear that rioters would attack his offices due to his supporting the Conscription Act of 1863? That newspaper was none other than the New York Times, one of the most virulently anti-gun papers in print today. Mr. Raymond bought three of them, which he installed in his building during the riots.

An interesting story exists about Gatling guns being used to defend the New York Times building during the Draft Riots of July 13-16, 1863, during which the mob of 50,000 people caused 1,000 deaths and $2,000,000 in property damage.

“While others cowered in fear of mob violence, Henry Jarvis Raymond, editor of the New York Times and a prominent Republican politician, was prepared to fight. Daily, he blasted the mob in flaming editorials in the Times. Brightly illuminated by night, its plate glass windows gleaming a challenge to the mob, the imposing Times Building, an arrogant symbol of wealth, seemed to dare the rioters to attack. Raymond, who advised ‘Give them grape (shot), and plenty of it.’ was quite ready to do so. Inside the two northern windows, commanding the most likely avenues of attack were mounted Gatling Guns, manned by Raymond himself and Leonard Walter Jerome, a major stockholder of the New York Times (and future grandfather of Winston Churchill). A third Gatling was on the roof of the building, in position to sweep the streets below. The entire staff of the newspaper had been equipped with rifles and stood ready for the attack that might have come at any moment. The Times was waited for the mob-Messrs. Raymond and Jerome probably would have like nothing better than a chance to play Gatling music for the rioters’ edification-but the attack never came. Learning that the Timesmen were well armed, the mob directed its attentions elsewhere. As it was to do many times in future years, the Gatling Gun had served well-without firing a shot.”

Yay for the gun as a peacemaker and a life-and-property saver, but perhaps America might be a bit better off today had the New York Times been burned to the ground back in 1863.

I'm just saying...

68 years later...

This is the Battleship West Virginia, BB-48. She was in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on that peaceful Sunday morning 68 years ago. She was sunk during that cowardly unprovoked sneak attack launched by the Japanese on December 7th, 1941. 106 of her crew were killed, many still in their bunks.

The West Virginia was only one of the ships that was sunk or damaged just after sunrise on that tranquil Sunday morning. Everyone knows the Arizona, and hers is a story worth knowing to be sure. But the Arizona's was not the only story on that morning. The West Virginia had a story, too. And so did every other ship moored in Pearl Harbor that day.

It's easy to forget these days. Our media proves that every year. They didn't used to when I was young, but back then, I suspect that more of the news outlets were being run by people who actually remembered. Now they're run by people born later who view America as the chief villain on the world stage. Bill Keller, Editor and head scumbag at the New York Times, was born in 1949, too late to be remember the days when better Americans fought and died to save the world from Nazis and assorted Italian and Japanese facists. 2,200 better men than Bill Keller died at Pearl Harbor 68 years ago today. And as expected, there is no mention of it in his newspaper.

But it's mentioned here. And it will be every year. The Liberals may have forgotten the sacrifices of their betters, but Lagniappe and I won't.

Good men die in rescue of New York Times scumbag

This is wrong on so many levels.

KABUL — British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said.

Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story.

Two military officials told The Associated Press that one British commando died during the early morning raid. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the death had not been officially announced.

The Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Farrell was unhurt.

Afghan officials over the weekend said about 70 people died when U.S. jets dropped two bombs on the tankers, igniting them in a massive explosion. There were reports that villagers who had come to collect fuel from the tankers were among the dead, and Farrell wanted to interview villagers.

The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.

So here we have a reporter for the New York Times, probably the most Anti-US publication that's actually based in the US, and he gets kidnapped while trying to work up another story that no doubt would have started out with something like "US air pirates murdered a bunch of poor villagers for no good reason when..."

Basically, he was there to to the Taliban's job for them--criticizing American troops and undermining their mission and morale. This is something that the Times did nonstop right up until the coronation of Barack Obama. But once their messiah took office, they had to choose a course of action--keep bashing a military that they hated, or quiet down on that since that military was now under Barack Obama and continued criticism of them would be criticism of him.

Apparently the decision was made. The Times has been pretty quiet as of late when it comes to bashing the military and trying to ferret out and publish classified information. But their people are still in the area, and when this one got grabbed by his fellow America-haters, British commandos found out where he was and dropped in to save him, tragically losing one of their own in the process--a true hero worth more than the entire New York Times staff put together.

Also killed was a native Afghani who was serving as a translator and who dreamed of a safe, stable Afghanistan, free of the Taliban. Farrell probably held him in utter contempt, but he too was a better man than Farrell. This man died trying to save his country; Farrell was only there to undermine his own.

Also ironic and hypocritical was the fact that the New York Times self-censored the kidnapping and refused to publish that "news", and also that they asked other publications not to publish it and the rest of the media complied. Now this is at total odds with their longstanding policy of printing every bit of information about the US war effort and agenda, even information that put our troops at risk and even when they had been asked specifically by the White House not to do so. But George Bush was President then, and the New York Times staff hated George Bush, so they did whatever they could to hurt the military and his policies, and if it meant that more US soldiers died...well that was just fine with the Times.

But now when it's one of their own...well they manage to orchestrate a total news blackout by virtue of the cooperation of complicit "competing" media outlets.

Kind of makes you wonder what else we never learn just because a few newspaper bigs decide that it's not in their interest for us to find out, eh?

The New York Times is garbage, unfit for fish-wrapping or birdcage-lining. It'll never be allowed in this house, and the day that it folds will be a day worthy of celebration by all Americans who love this country that it opposes. It's just a damned shame that two really good men had to die for that paper because one of it's Quisling reporters just had to chase down another anti-US story. Thank you for your efforts, Britain, and I'm sorry for your loss. However if there's any such thing as Karma, Stephen Farrell will get run over by a cab or choke on a hot dog immediately on his return to New York.

EDIT: Turns out that Farrell isn't an American--he's a British citizen. (Well that explains his anti-Americanism...he's clearly jealous). So the British Special Forces still traded a hero for a dirtbag, only it was one of their own dirtbags. And today, the New York Times is all mad because they were negotiating with the Taliban and because the soldiers blew the Taliban scum away, the New York Times now feels that it's standing with the Taliban has been harmed.

So I have a new idea. The next time that anyone gets kidnapped in Iraq or Afghanistan, we just call up the kidnappers and trade them Bill Keller, Editor of the Times, for whoever is being held. Then we call it a day and don't waste any more time or resources on rescue attempts. Maybe the Times would actually replace Keller with someone who appreciates his country enough to at least remember which side that he's supposed to be supporting. If it were the 1940's, Bill Keller would have been in federal prison for his seditious acts a long time ago.