Tag: nyt

Leftists Excited to Begin Cannibalizing the Elderly

Did you live a self-reliant, constructive life? Did you play by the rules, work hard, raise your kids to be productive members of society, save up, and arrive in seniority well-provisioned for your well-earned golden years?

Sucker!

If you simply reverse the direction of each of the Ten Commandments, you arrive at the leftist version. Among these is the Marxist tenet of weaponized envy — Thou shalt covet — and its corollary, Thou shalt steal.

Socialist-communists are always on the lookout for ways to play the many against the few so they can pillage the minority, enriching themselves while throwing crumbs to their useful-idiot foot soldiers. And right now, they are taking aim at senior citizens who saved their pennies so they might enjoy their retirements.

An opinion-setting column appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday. Entitled “Older Americans Are Hoarding America’s Potential,” it was penned by Samuel Moyn, a professor of law and history at Yale who has a book coming out called Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth — and What to Do About It (emphasis added, because that’s the scary part).

In his column, Moyn makes perfunctory efforts to calm readers’ fears about his intentions. “‘Ageism’ identifies an enduring phenomenon: the mistreatment of older people for no reason other than being older,” he soothes. “Americans in middle age and beyond are routinely passed over for opportunities because of the irrelevant fact of a number on paper or how they act and look after getting older.”

And yet, “In today’s world, the unfair discrimination they cite coexists with a different kind of unfairness: a gerontocratic society in which the old control ever more power and wealth, leading to overrepresentation in political life and unequal power in social life.”

That’s right: It’s unfair to keep what you earned and to exercise your civic duty to vote and be engaged.

Naturally, that leads Moyn to conclude: “It is not ageist to ask whether older people should be required to give more to younger Americans and national priorities — it is critical to the future of our democracy and society. America needs to confront gerontocracy before the system collapses under the weight of its inequality and injustice.”

No, it’s not “ageist” to ask that — it’s Marxist.

“Older Americans deserve a say over the future even when they might not live to see it,” Moyn placates, before ratcheting up his rhetoric: “But they do not deserve the stranglehold over it they currently enjoy through overrepresentation in elections, which produces too many regressive policies and too many seniors in the highest offices.”

A second column, in the May 2026 issue of The Atlantic, is an even more direct attack. It’s titled “An Oligarchy of Old People.” Recall that socialist stars AOC and Bernie Sanders just completed their so-called Fighting Oligarchy Tour, and author Idrees Kahloon could not make it much clearer that “Old People” are the enemy. The opening salvo is an ugly comparison of elderly people who lived successful lives to dictators: “Gerontocracy has always thrived in undemocratic places—Communist people’s republics, Gulf monarchies—where only death could pry power from the ruling elders.” Well, then, I guess we know where Kahloon stands on the subject.

Kahloon points out that high-level politicians and the most engaged voters tend to be over 50. This seems only natural to me, and generally desirable, as leaders ought to have some life experience and wisdom.

But Moyn gives away the game when he complains that these powerful old people have the wrong political preferences:

Some of the excessive power that the aging have amassed harms society, as they enjoy advantages to the detriment of others. That power hurts a large number of elderly Americans themselves. Crucial priorities for the future, like creativity and dynamism, environmental remediation, immigration policies and tax fairness also suffer under gerontocracy. Older Americans favor restrictions on immigration most, even when they need immigrant caregivers most. Likewise, there is a correlation between age and resistance to policies to halt the overheating of the planet or raise funds for education and other civic purposes.

Both authors lay on the envy-mongering. Here’s Kahloon:

Although political gerontocracy has operated overtly, the rising economic power of the elderly has escaped much notice. Over the past 40 or so years, American wealth has grown ever more concentrated among the oldest generations. In 1989, Americans over age 55 held 56 percent of it; today they hold 74 percent. During that same period, the share of wealth held by Americans under 40 has shrunk by nearly half, from 12 to 6.6 percent. The color of money is now gray.

Both authors bemoan the fact that 55-and-up-year-olds own the most expensive real estate and hold the most powerful jobs. Except for the ones who don’t, who are thus also harmed by the greedy successful elderly hoarding their “accumulated housing, jobs and wealth,” as Moyn describes it. So much for passing down one’s legacy to one’s children or favorite charities, I suppose. Whatever — the elderly have-nots are simply more bodies to add to the push to loot the elderly haves.

Keep reading

REPORT: The Latest ‘Shadow Docket’ Scandal Proves Between the Justices and Legacy Media, SCOTUS Is Toast

This week seems to be rife with journalistic malpractice from outlets either running with leaked and unsubstantiated material that tries and fails to put Trump administration officials in a bad light or works to erode and undermine our nation’s institutional bodies of governance. 

The latest installment from The New York Times involves leaked memos from the United States Supreme Court, verified by more anonymous sources. 

The Times spoke to 10 people, liberals and conservatives, who were familiar with the deliberations over the pivotal emergency order and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because confidentiality was a condition of their employment.

Amazing how one can fail so spectacularly on this basic tenet of integrity. God help us.

The papers expose what critics have called the weakness at the heart of the shadow docket: an absence of the kind of rigorous debate that the justices devote to their normal cases.

After obtaining the papers, The Times confirmed their authenticity with several people familiar with the deliberations and shared them with a spokeswoman for the court. The Times posed detailed questions to the justices who wrote the memos; they did not respond.

Nor should they. 

As RedState reported in February, Chief Justice Roberts took action to secure the integrity of the court’s processes after the 2022 leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Two months later, if this latest tranche of leaked memos is any indication, it hasn’t worked. Between justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly criticizing their constitutionalist colleagues, and the legacy media’s breathlessly publishing unsourced and leaked material, soon there will not be a Supreme Court left to preserve.

Keep reading

New York Times does it again, pushing pro-vaccine narrative over journalism

A recent New York Times article examining Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and developments at the CDC is drawing criticism over what some describe as one-sided vaccine coverage.

The article, published March 23, relied heavily on interviews with former CDC officials and presented commonly cited claims that vaccines are safe and effective, while offering little perspective from those who question that view.

It also highlighted Kennedy’s work and advocacy, including claims that he has spread misinformation about vaccines.

The coverage pointed to a 2025 measles outbreak in a Texas community with low vaccination rates, attributing reported deaths to measles. Other accounts cited by Children’s Health Defense have raised questions about those conclusions.

The article also addressed statements about vaccine ingredients, including the use of fetal cell lines in some vaccines. Kennedy has raised concerns about the presence of human DNA fragments, which some individuals cite as a religious or ethical issue.

On autism, the article echoed the widely held view that rising diagnosis rates are largely due to expanded screening and reporting. Critics argue that explanation does not fully account for the increase.

The article further referenced concerns about what it described as “spurious harms” linked to vaccines. However, federal data show billions of dollars have been awarded through the vaccine injury compensation program.

It also cited public health positions on issues such as fluoridated drinking water and routine vaccination schedules recommended by major medical organizations.

The broader debate over vaccine mandates and informed consent was also raised, including whether individuals should have the right to decline vaccines for religious or personal reasons.

The discussion comes as vaccination rates for some vaccines have declined, religious exemptions have increased, and lawmakers consider changes to vaccine policy, including liability protections and exemption laws.

Keep reading

New York Times Downplays Savage Hammer Murder of Mother to Attack Trump, Doesn’t Include That Killer Was an Illegal Alien from Haiti

The New York Times is under fire for its coverage of the savage hammer murder of a mother in Florida by a Haitian illegal alien, downplaying the heinous crime, shielding his immigration status, and complaining about President Donald Trump’s reaction instead.

The article, while blasting Trump for “disparaging comments about Haitian immigrants,” used softened language to describe the crime and did not mention the killer’s illegal status even once.

On April 3, 40-year-old Rolbert Joachin, a Haitian national who entered the United States illegally, brutally murdered 51-year-old Nilufar Yasmin outside a Chevron gas station in Fort Myers, Florida, where she worked as a clerk.

Surveillance video captured Joachin smashing the windshield of Yasmin’s car with a hammer before she confronted him. He then repeatedly struck her in the head with the weapon, bludgeoning her to death in broad daylight.

Authorities said the attack was calculated, and Joachin later told detectives he went to the gas station specifically to kill her.

Keep reading

The New York Times Runs Sob Story About a WI Dairy Farmer Who Might Lose His ‘Undocumented’ Laborers

Democrats have made it very clear that one of the reasons they support unfettered illegal immigration is that they want to import a slave-labor class that they can pay cheaply and keep in deplorable working conditions. They prove this every time they argue that, sans illegals, we wouldn’t have anyone to clean our toilets or cut our grass and the price of our produce would go up because farmers would have to pay people a living wage to harvest crops (a lot of which is automated these days, anyway).

Now the New York Times is playing that card again, this time with Wisconsin, where a farm that made the choice to hire “undocumented workers” is worried deportations will hurt their business.

Here’s more:

That worker, who came from Mexico as a teenager, knew that a calf that was sick in the morning could be dead by evening. He knew this because he has worked in the dairy industry in Wisconsin for his entire adult life, and on this family farm for about 20 years. Now in his 40s, he has mastered the intricacies of milking, birthing and inseminating, and logging it all onto a computer. This February morning, he was passing down his knowledge to the 19-year-old grandson of the family who employs him.

“We’re a little bit behind today, so you can hear everybody’s kind of angry at us,” said Sullivan O’Harrow, the grandson, who motioned toward the bellowing calves as he walked beside the worker training him.

Immigrant workers are the lifeblood of the O’Harrow farm, a four-generation family enterprise with 1,600 cows in northeastern Wisconsin. But many of them will not travel to Mexico to see dying parents, or drive to nearby towns to visit siblings, or let journalists use their names in newspapers, because they are afraid of being swept up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

That they need to hide strikes the O’Harrow family as morally wrong, but also as potentially bad for the country: These workers oversee America’s milk. By one estimate, dairies that employ immigrant workers produce 79 percent of the nation’s milk supply and the price of milk would double without them.

Keep reading

NYT Covers Iran War With No Reporters in Iran

Since the US and Israel first attacked Iran in late February, it has been easy to spot the stark difference between the New York Times’ distant coverage of Iran and its up-close and personal coverage of Israel.

Multiple Times employees are reporting from and currently living in Israel. These include reporters Isabel Kershner, Aaron Boxerman, Gabby Sobelman, Natan Odenheimer, Ronen Bergman, Adam Rasgon, Johnatan Reiss and Raja Abdulrahim, as well as Jerusalem bureau chief David M. Halbfinger.

They routinely report stories that center Israeli citizens, as in “How Israelis Feel About Another Potential War With Iran” (2/26/26). First-hand Times reports have Israelis taking “Shelter as Sirens Warn of Incoming Missiles” (2/28/26), feeling “Tense But Relieved That Iran’s Supreme Leader Is Dead” (3/1/26) and celebrating “Purim Amid Iranian Missile Attacks” (3/4/26). They also have penned stories on Iranian missile strikes in Israel mere hours after they took place (3/1/26, 3/18/26).

Many articles have been based primarily on statements from Israeli officials (3/1/26, 3/3/26, 3/11/26, 3/19/26) and US officials (3/2/26, 3/7/26). Other articles have centered on the perspective of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and what would benefit him (2/28/26, 3/14/26, 3/18/26).

Meanwhile, the Times has no reporters based in Iran, as its editors admitted in two Q&A-style articles (3/9/26, 3/16/26). Instead, the paper has largely relied on its Visual Investigations team (3/12/26) and reporters based elsewhere to cover Iran, including correspondents in Israel, the US, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, India, Sri Lanka, South Korea, England, France and Germany. The Times reporters who most often quote Iranian voices—like Farnaz Fassihi, Parin Behrooz (both based in the US) and Yeganeh Torbati (reporting from Turkey)—largely rely on telephone interviews (3/2/26, 3/27/26), along with “text messages and social media posts” (3/18/26).

This lack of on-the-ground coverage in Iran has directly resulted in slower coverage and confirmation of US/Israel culpability for deadly strikes. For example, it took five days for the Times (3/5/26) to report that the US was “most likely to have carried out the strike” on the school in Minab that killed at least 175 Iranian civilians, mostly schoolchildren.

Keep reading

Correcting the NY Times ACIP Reporting on Vaccine Injury

Seeing Sunday’s NY Times headline titled Confidential Report Calls for Sweeping Changes to Track Covid Vaccine Harms, a reflexive question flashed in the minds of even the most staunch defenders of legacy vaccine policy – Is the NY Times about to dismiss the Covid vaccine injured?

For those who don’t care to read the outlet’s reporting, here are what the author’s chose to add as closing words:

“The basis of supposed Covid vaccine injury syndrome is even less persuasive and thus even less directly relevant to vaccine policy…”

For experienced readers, seeing who the article’s lead author is should have caused pause immediately. When is comes to journalistic integrity, Apoorva Mandavilli is not who comes to mind.

In an October 6, 2021 NYT’s article titled A New Vaccine Strategy for Children: Just One Dose, for Now Mandavilli stated that 900,000 U.S. children have been hospitalized due to Covid. She was forced to correct the glaring error when the real number was found to be slightly more than 63,000.

In 2022 Mandavilli reported on the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) recommendation of Pfizer’s Covid shot for kids 5-11-years-old. NY Times initially reports, “Nearly 4,000 children aged 5 to 11 have died from a Covid-related condition called multisystem inflammatory syndrome during the pandemic.”

Mandavilli was again forced to add a correction”

Keep reading

NYT Accidentally Confesses There’s A Left-Wing Judicial Coup Against Trump

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has never been one to show good judgement. When he’s not getting caught conducting “personal business” on a staff Zoom call, he’s accidentally admitting that there’s an ongoing leftist-led judicial coup designed to stymie President Trump’s agenda.

The serial self-pleasurer let the proverbial cat out of the bag in his Monday opinion column for The New York Times. Titled, “The Plan for a Radically Different Supreme Court Is Here,” the article purports to roll out a blueprint for countering conservative appointments of originalist judges to the bench but inadvertently discloses the existence of leftists’ efforts to weaponize the judicial system against Trump.

The admission comes in the piece’s opening paragraphs, in which Toobin discusses the American Constitution Society and its new president, Phil Brest. The ACS has often been described as the less successful and left-wing alternative to the conservative Federalist Society, which has become an influential force in getting originalists appointed to the Supreme Court and other federal judgeships.

Toobin notes how Brest — who worked in the Biden White House’s counsel office — “helped the president nominate and win confirmation of 235 federal judges, which is more than Mr. Trump’s total in his first term.” In the very next sentence, however, the CNN legal analyst let it slip that these judicial appointments have become the left’s primary tool in grinding Trump and his voters’ agenda to a halt.

“Those [Biden] judges — and others appointed by Democratic presidents — have proved that the most effective resistance to Mr. Trump has come not from Democratic politicians but rather from federal judges,” wrote Toobin, who subsequently listed off a series of overreaching orders issued by “these judges, many of them Biden appointees,” against the 47th president.

Toobin goes on to lament how the ACS has not boasted the same level of success as groups like The Federalist Society and has failed to advance an alternative style of judicial interpretation to originalism, which emphasizes the interpretation of the Constitution as written at the time of its adoption. Once again, the CNN legal analyst openly admits that — contrary to the article’s headline — the ACS doesn’t actually have a different philosophy or “plan” in mind, and that the group’s only strategy at the moment is appointing activist judges who will abuse their authority to stonewall Republican presidents.

“For now, under Mr. Brest, the A.C.S. seems headed for an approach that looks like the one that Democratic politicians have so far adopted: aimed more at opposition to Mr. Trump’s record rather than on a specific, alternative vision for the Constitution. In his opening message to the group, Mr. Brest described the A.C.S. as building ‘a bulwark against overreach by the Trump administration and the Roberts court,’” Toobin wrote. “Mr. Brest has pledged that A.C.S. will continue its Biden-era focus on judicial appointments … As for what those judges will stand for — as opposed to what they stand against — Mr. Brest has no clear answer.”

What Toobin’s article encapsulates is the left’s ongoing struggle session about how best to lie to the American people about the kinds of legal minds they want to appoint to the bench and their blatant disregard for proper separation of powers.

The entire reason for the modern originalist movement’s foundation and ultimate success is because of past Supreme Courts’ embrace of living constitutionalism, a style of judicial interpretation in which judges treat the Constitution as a “living” document that magically evolves with the times. It is through this philosophy that judges take it upon themselves to act as legislators and effectively rewrite America’s founding document as they see fit.

Keep reading

New York Times Hit Piece On ICE Facilities’ Medical Care Is Riddled With Falsehoods, DHS Says

Ahit piece in The New York Times claiming the medical care provided at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers is ‘poor’ is riddled with falsehoods, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) told The Federalist.

The New York Times on Saturday ran through several claims that several illegal aliens did not receive proper care: Aliens were forced to wait long periods of time to be “lucky enough to see a doctor,” diabetes patients did not receive regular insulin, and detainees faced various other medical care failures.

According to DHS, those claims are totally unfounded.

“These allegations of illegal aliens being denied proper medical care in ICE custody are FALSE. It is both policy and longstanding practice for aliens to receive timely and appropriate medical care from the moment they enter ICE custody,” Dr. Sean Conley, DHS chief medical officer, told The Federalist. “This includes medical, dental, women’s health and mental health services, any needed follow up medical appointments as well as  24-hour emergency care. This is better, more responsive healthcare than many aliens have ever received in their entire lives.”

The New York Times claims that medical staff at Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas “downplayed” the concerns Kheilin Domelis Valero Marcano and Stiven Jose Arrieta Prieto had about the medical condition of their 18-month-old daughter, Amalia Isabella Arrieta-Valero. The Biden administration released the Venezuelan family in 2024 after they entered the country illegally, according to DHS.

Marcano and Prieto claim, apparently through a lawyer, that medical staff delayed until Arrieta-Valero developed a fever that allegedly lasted 19 days and caused her to lose two pounds.

According to DHS, however, after Arrieta-Valero developed a respiratory condition, she “immediately received proper medical care and was admitted to the Methodist Children’s Hospital in San Antonio, Texas for treatment.”

She stayed at the hospital for eight days, and then a pediatrician approved her release. She was brought back to Dilley, where she received further medical monitoring and prescriptions.

Another claim in the hit piece is about Anastasiia Ekimovskaia, a 35-year-old illegal alien from Russia who entered the United States illegally on Oct. 6, 2025, who “reported no medical or mental health” concerns upon arrival at Dilley, DHS said.

The New York Times says DHS staff refused care to Ekimovskaia for hemorrhaging and bleeding “through six sanitary pads.” She was ultimately taken to a hospital, allegedly after “pleading with staff and after they demanded proof.” She showed the pads and was given a prescription that “took weeks to arrive” as “the bleeding continued.”

According to DHS, Ekimovskaia said she had side pain on Nov. 1, and disclosed a “history of kidney stones.” After consulting with the medical staff who “started appropriate treatment” and planned a future visit to revisit the situation, on Nov. 6, she sought care for “menstrual discomfort and heavy bleeding,” DHS said.

After going to Frio Regional Hospital upon referral from Dilley’s medical provider, she was “diagnosed with moderate heavy menstrual bleeding” and referred to an off-site obstetrician-gynecologist and had “multiple follow-up appointments.”

Keep reading

The Heavy Pot Taxes Favored by The New York Times Would Undermine Legalization

The New York Times embraced legalization of recreational marijuana in 2014, two years after Colorado and Washington became the first states to take that step. By that point, most Americans opposed pot prohibition, and that majority has grown since then.

Although the Times does not regret endorsing legalization, its editorial board now says stricter regulation and heavier taxation are necessary to curtail the costs associated with marijuana abuse. Those recommendations elide two inconvenient facts: Cannabis is still federally prohibited, and states are still struggling to replace unauthorized pot peddlers with government-licensed marijuana merchants.

The Times emphasizes that “occasional marijuana use is no more a problem than drinking a glass of wine with dinner or smoking a celebratory cigar.” But while marijuana “is safer than alcohol and tobacco in some ways,” the Times says, “it is not harmless.”

Frequent cannabis consumption has increased substantially in recent years, the Times notes, and roughly one in 10 marijuana users “develops an addiction.” Even nonaddicted cannabis consumers “can still use it too much,” it says, since “people who are frequently stoned can struggle to hold a job or take care of their families.”

The Times also mentions cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, “marijuana-linked paranoia,” and the danger posed by stoned drivers. “Any product that brings both pleasures and problems requires a balancing act,” the Times says, which means “personal freedom” must be curtailed to protect “public health.”

That formulation is inherently paternalistic, since the “public health” burden to which the Times refers is borne mainly by cannabis consumers themselves. And the moral logic of the hefty marijuana taxes that the Times favors is questionable.

Those taxes would add to the difficulties that some heavy consumers face while punishing the occasional use that the paper says is no big deal. Although “adults should have the freedom to use” marijuana, the Times says, they must pay the government for that privilege.

A tax-based “balancing act” also raises practical difficulties. “The first step in a strategy to reduce marijuana abuse should be a federal tax on pot,” the Times says, gliding over the point that Congress cannot impose an excise tax on marijuana products unless it is prepared to legalize them.

The editorial does not explicitly acknowledge the need for that step. To the contrary, it implicitly criticizes President Donald Trump’s decision to reclassify marijuana under federal law, which falls far short of legalization.

Keep reading