Revenge Of The Lunch Lady: Pennsylvania Woman Arrested Sniping At Children On Playground With BB Gun

Lunch ladies have been featured regularly on this blog in a variety of controversies (here and here and here and here). Marie McWilliams, 30, however, is not some passive aggressive lunch lady. McWilliams is accused of actually sniping at children on the playground with a BB gun and then pledging to get the children in her own time.

McWilliams works at in the Shamokin Area School District and admitted to hunting at the Ranshaw school playground. McWilliams reportedly took a sniper position in an upstairs window. When confronted by police, she allegedly told them that, “If I don’t get [the kids] now, I will get them tomorrow.”

According to WNEP 16, McWilliams “got angry when they started to curse at her.” according to WNEP 16. She works as a lunch lady for the Shamokin Area School District, and told a parent who confronted her, “If I don’t get [the kids] now, I will get them tomorrow.”

She is not employed by the school district but Nutrition Incorporated, an outside company that handles the district’s food service.

She is charged with simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, harassment and the sale and use of air rifles.

That last charge surprised me but it is presumably brought under Section 6304 of the Pennsylvania Title 18:

(a) Sale or transfer of air rifles.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any dealer to sell, lend, rent, give, or otherwise transfer an air rifle to any person under the age of 18 years, where the dealer knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, the person to be under 18 years of age, or where such dealer has failed to make reasonable inquiry relative to the age of such person, and such person is under 18 years of age.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, give, lend, or otherwise transfer any air rifle to any person under 18 years of age, except where the relationship of parent and child, guardian and ward or adult instructor and pupil exists between such person and the person under 18 years of age.

(b) Carrying or discharging air rifles.

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person under 18 years of age to carry any air rifle on the highways or public lands unless accompanied by an adult, except that a person under 18 years of age may carry such rifle unloaded in a suitable case or securely wrapped.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any air rifle from or across any highway or public land or any public place, except on a properly constructed target range.

161 thoughts on “Revenge Of The Lunch Lady: Pennsylvania Woman Arrested Sniping At Children On Playground With BB Gun”

  1. It stings to get hit by a BB and it leaves a little bruise usually, unless the clothes have totally dissipated the energy. Obviously an eyeball hit would suck the worst. When I was a kid I hit a lot of squirrels with BBs and they just scampered off quickly. Yet, a good pellet gun can do the trick on varmints if you’re close enough.

    1. Yes, Trump voters are commonly people who do the thankless tasks in this country, like whip up the grub for youngsters who treat them like cr!p. And also for school administrators, who are paid agreeable salaries for five-days-a-week worth of bureaucratic double-talk and failure theatre.

      1. Yeah, well hopefully they get off the federal tax dole paid to their states thanks to the blue states.

  2. It’s 2019 now, not 2015. Someone needs to tell Estovir.

    This happened in 2017.

    Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim sells off half of NY Times shares

    BY JOE CONCHA – 12/20/17 09:30 AM EST

    Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim sells off half of NY Times shares

    BY JOE CONCHA – 12/20/17 09:30 AM EST

    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/365763-mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-sells-off-half-of-ny-times-shares

    Excerpt:

    Mexico’s richest man and the sixth-richest in the world according to Forbes’s annual rankings stands to make a considerable profit after New York Times stock has risen about 40 percent in 2017 alone.

    Despite the sell-off, Slim, 77, appears to still be the second-largest shareholder of the company. New York-based investment management firm BlackRock is now its largest with a stake of 8.1 percent.

    The news comes days after Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., 66, stepped down as publisher of The New York Times and passed the baton to his son, Arthur G. Sulzberger, 37.

    The paper of record has been in the Sulzberger family since 1896. Sulzberger Jr. took over from his father, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger, 25 years ago.

    The unpredictable and fast-moving Trump era has been a boon for the newspaper.

    In July, the paper announced it had surpassed 3.3 million print and digital subscribers and doubled its digital base in the past two years alone, while the paper’s online content averages more than 140 million unique visitors per month, according to the company.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-19/biggest-new-york-times-investor-slim-hatches-deal-to-slash-stake

    But that was back in 2017.

    1. List of richest people* in the world.

      Real-time rankings 2019

      Rank Name Citizenship Net worth (USD) Age Main source of wealth Ref(s)

      1 Jeff Bezos United States $152.0 billion Increase 55 Amazon.com

      2 Bill Gates United States $99.7 billion Increase 63 Microsoft

      3 Bernard Arnault France $89.1 billion Increase 69 LVMH

      4 Warren Buffett United States $88.5 billion Increase 88 Berkshire Hathaway

      5 Amancio Ortega Spain $67.5 billion Increase 82 Zara

      6 Mark Zuckerberg United States $65.4 billion Increase 34 Facebook

      7 Larry Ellison United States $65.4 billion Increase 74 Oracle

      8 Carlos Slim Mexico $63.2 billion Decrease 78 América Móvil

      – Wikipedia

      * Carlos Slim is “accredited” to function in a corrupt Narcocracy and “wealthy” women are typically “heiresses” to the estates of men.

    2. Carlos Slim: The New York Times’ Sugar Daddy

      Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from Ann Coulter’s new book, “¡Adios, America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole”

      CAN WE TRUST ANYTHING THE NEW YORK TIMES SAYS ABOUT IMMIGRATION?

      In 2008, the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu, saved the Times from bankruptcy. When that guy saves your company, you dance to his tune. So it’s worth mentioning that Slim’s fortune depends on tens of millions of Mexicans living in the United States, preferably illegally.

      That is, unless the Times is some bizarre exception to the normal pattern of corruption—which you can read about at this very minute in the Times. If a tobacco company owned Fox News, would we believe their reports on the dangers of smoking? (Guess what else Slim owns? A tobacco company!) The Times impugns David and Charles Koch for funneling “secret cash” into a “right-wing political zeppelin.”1 The Kochs’ funding of Americans for Prosperity is hardly “secret.” What most people think of as “secret cash” is more like Carlos Slim’s purchase of favorable editorial opinion in the Newspaper of Record.

      It would be fun to have a “Sugar Daddy–Off” with the New York Times:

      Whose Sugar Daddy Is More Loathsome? The Koch Brothers? The Olin Foundation? Monsanto? Halliburton? Every time, Carlos Slim would win by a landslide. Normally, Slim is the kind of businessman the Times—along with every other sentient human being—would find repugnant.

      Frequently listed as the richest man in the world, Slim acquired his fortune through a corrupt inside deal giving him a monopoly on telecommunications services in Mexico. But in order to make money from his monopoly, Slim needs lots of Mexicans living in the United States, sending money to their relatives back in Oaxaca. Otherwise, Mexicans couldn’t pay him—and they wouldn’t have much need for phone service, either—other than to call in ransom demands.

      Back in 2004—before the Times became Slim’s pimp—a Times article stated: “Clearly . . . the nation’s southern border is under siege.”2 But that was before Carlos Slim saved the Times from bankruptcy. Ten years later, with a border crisis even worse than in 2004, and Latin Americans pouring across the border, the Times indignantly demanded that Obama “go big” on immigration and give “millions of immigrants permission to stay.” What a difference one thieving Mexican billionaire makes!

      True, it’s not unusual for the Times to root for the destruction of the United States. Maybe, in this particular instance, the Times agrees with every single thing Slim says. Perhaps there was a secret meeting with Slim: You may have saved us, Carlos Slim, but this newspaper will be in no way cognizant of your financial interest in continued illegal immigration. You’re just very lucky that we happen to agree with you. However, if you get into offshore drilling, we will take a VERY strong position against you.

      On the other hand, there’s no question but that the Times has become exceptionally shrill on immigration since Slim saved the company from bankruptcy.

      HOW “THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD” MAKES MONEY ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

      One of the ways Slim makes money off of illegal immigration in the United States is by overcharging Mexicans to call home, especially during World Cup soccer season. Slim takes a percentage of all cell phone calls into Mexico—and Telmex’s “interconnection rates” are astronomical. International roaming rates are 37 percent higher in Mexico than the average of all OECD countries.

      But the main way illegal immigrants benefit Slim is through their remissions. Monopolistic pricing is of little value in a poor country. A monopoly on air in Burundi would not produce the world’s richest man. Luckily for Slim, Mexico is located right next to one of the wealthiest nations in the world. The OECD estimates that Slim’s suffocating telecommunications monopoly costs Mexican consumers $26 billion a year, with more than half of that coming from Slim gouging his customers. They would have $20 billion less to spend without 40 million Mexicans living in the United States.

      According to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Mexican immigrants or those of Mexican descent send at least $20 billion out of America back to their relatives in Mexico each year.29 No wonder immigrants are so reliant on welfare—they’re sending so much of it out of the country! Twenty billion dollars is significantly more—about a quarter more—than the amount of money the United States sends to Mexico in direct foreign aid. The $20 billion being sent to immigrants’ grandmothers in Chiapas is forever eliminated from the American economy—unavailable for investment in American companies, the purchase of American products, or hiring American workers. That’s a cost of immigration that Americans are never told about.

      These billions of dollars being drained out of the U.S. economy every year would be bad enough if the money were coming exclusively from cheap-labor employers like Sheldon Adelson. But it’s worse than that. It comes from American taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers have to support Americans who lose their jobs to low-wage immigrant laborers, taxpayers support the immigrants, too. Seventy-five percent of immigrant families from Mexico are on government assistance.

      Then they turn around and give the money to Carlos Slim. The majority of the money sent by immigrants to Mexico is used for “consumption”— i.e., to buy Carlos Slim’s telephone service, shop at Carlos Slim’s department stores, and eat in Carlos Slim’s restaurants. Slim’s businesses account for 40 percent of all publicly traded companies on Mexico’s main stock market index.

      That’s why, in 2014, Slim was exhorting Mexican youth to cross illegally into the United States for jobs. The stated purpose of Obama’s open defiance of American immigration laws was to avoid punishing “children” who were brought to the United States by their parents. Slim didn’t care about that. (Then again, neither did Obama.) He just wanted more Mexicans working in America and sending dollars back to him. As the CEO of the “Carlos Slim Foundation” explained, “[O]ur goal is to reduce the access barriers for them to reach this potential . . . to build not just them but their families, so they’re able to contribute to the economy”—i.e., the Mexican economy owned by Carlos Slim.

      THE TIMES CHANGES ITS TUNE

      The Times has become noticeably hysterical about illegal immigration since Carlos Slim came on board. In 1997—the pre-Slim days—the Times had editorialized: “Fighting illegal immigration is a difficult and important job. But Congress should do it in a way that will deter illegal entry at the border.”39 Another editorial that year complained that the Immigration and Naturalization Service had “done a poor job of keeping out illegal aliens, deporting criminals [and] processing requests for asylum.” This wasn’t even Bush-bashing—Clinton was president!

      Post-Slim, the Times tends more toward deranged hectoring in favor of illegal immigration. In the Times’ 2014 “Go Big” editorial—the one insisting that Obama grant permanent residence to illegal immigrants streaming across the border—the Times sniped: “Republicans will howl over Mr. Obama’s solo actions. Let them.”

      The Times should never stop hearing about Carlos Slim. By all the rules of the Left, you’re not supposed to trust someone beholden to a rich man, especially one with a specific interest in public policy. If Slim had saved any company in the world other than the New York Times, his sleazy insider deals and business model based on mass illegal immigration to the United States would absolutely be a problem. But you forgot something—we’re the New York Times! We’re the good guys. You’re not factoring that in.

      https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2015/06/01/carlos-slim-the-new-york-times-sugar-daddy-n2005713

      1. Carlos Slim Helu, saved the Times from bankruptcy.

        So NYT Owner Catholic Mexican Billionaire owned non-owners Sulzberger Jewish bros.

        oh my

        1. Again, the Sulzbergers are Jewish in the same sense as I’m a Confederate veteran.

          1. So NYT Owner Catholic Mexican Billionaire owned non-owners Sulzberger JewishConfederate veterans bros

          2. Something about who Nazis and anti-semites view as Jewish – they are not picky – tends to unite them in that identity. Confederate veterans not so much.

            1. L4D says–You don’t understand: [sarcasm alert] Jews don’t get to decide who is or is not Jewish. Confederate secessionist rebels and their German Catholic lackeys get to decide which Jews actually are Jews.

          3. Wiki Says Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. was married in a Presbyterian ceremony. That may just mean he married a Presbyterian woman.

            Carlos Slim is the son of Lebanese and wiki says he’s a Maronite Catholic.

            I like the NYT. It has an excellent layout and writing style. But it suffers from the usual mass media lack of perspective.

  3. Tom Nash says: ‘I don’t plan on wasting a lot of time trying to explain things to “anon”.’

    Anon probably doesn’t need your explanations.

    (As for wasting time, Tom seems to have plenty of it to waste.)

    1. That’s why LT Anonymous’ short, pithy, empty, and bitchy little comments are so highly valued here.

        1. L4D says–Ptom is meticulous is his explanations of what he can’t be bothered to explain.

          1. What I’ve written here would be self-explanatory to most people.
            I’m not going to translate it into Dianese for Anonymous/ L4D/Diane.

            1. That’s what “we’re” saying. Gnash is self-explanatory. Repetitively self-explanatory. Methodically, fastidiously, laboriously and even diligently self-explanatory.

              Contrributed by The L4D Adjectival Modification Project

                1. The two “anontmouses” posting about me seem to be of one mind.
                  It’s “highly probable” that they are members of the same coven.

              1. L4B should probably make up her “mind”.
                Last week, she griped about “ambiguity” of my post.
                Now, I’m “fastidiously self-explanatory”, “repetitively self-explanatory”, etc.
                People could get the wrong impression of her as a nitpicking, quarrelsome shrew if she’s not careful.
                Or, the correct impression of her.

  4. Now somewhere in this mess I was accused of posting material “outside of the ongoing discussion” .😃😄😂🤣
    The “ongoing discussion” had somehow ALREADY morphed into a discussion about Jews and ownership of the New York Times before I commented.
    It’s not uncommon for a thread to go far afield from the intial topic of a column. Sometimes a few individuals here will immediately use the comment threads to start there own column on a completely different topic.
    But it is a bit unusual and ironic when some fool who is participating in a “far-afield topic” makes an observation about some one else going off-topic.🙄

    1. Lest anyone is distracted by Tom’s comments – his apparent goal – Karen and Estovir (Tom’s ideological soulmates) introduced the subject of anti-semitism and the NYTs onto this page. One should assume his criticism is aimed at them, but then that would never happen. Tom is very concerned with process as it can be used as a weapon against those he disagrees with politically, but otherwise….. not so much.

      1. NYTs onto this page

        NY Times is an antisemitic rag.

        You consistently denigrate Fox News for spurious reasons but at least they are not antisemitic….unlike NYT

        cue your TDS tears here

      2. Once that topic was already under discussion, I did comment on that topic.
        If “anon” finds that, or shiny objects, to be “distracting”, that’s his tough luck.

      3. Anon says: May 5, 2019 at 2:42 PM

        “Tom is very concerned with process . . .”

        About that process . . . There are positive “brands” with which folks want to be associated–like patriotic American, for instance. And then there are “negative” brands–such as anti-Semite– that folks just want to shuck off. One way to shuck off the unwanted brand of anti-Semitism is to point your finger at someone, anyone, else and accuse that poor schnook of being an anti-Semite. In that way, the accuser acquires an immunity from any charge of anti-Semitism, because supposedly no true anti-Semite would ever accuse anyone else of being an anti-Semite. That would be . . . [what’s the word?] . . . Illogical.

        Now, on the odd chance that the process described above sounds a lot like a game of pin the tail on the donkey . . . You’re wrong. It’s actually a game of hot potato played by grown adults who no longer need to be blindfolded in order to pin the tale of anti-Semitism on Jewish Democrats in the employ of The New York Times or vice-versa.

        Contributed by The L4D That’s How Dumb It Gets Project

        (Still In Memory of P. Hill)

  5. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/classashares.asp
    I don’t plan on wasting a lot of time trying to explain things to “anon”.
    I will say, for anyone who might be interested, that WikiPedia is not always to most accurate or comprehensive source out there.
    I will occasionally use it in the absence of anything better. I don’t think that anon is even interpreting the WikiPedia version correctly, but figuring out the ownership of a publically traded company is not rocket science.
    I’ve read thousands of comprehensive stock reports from sources like the Value Line and Zack’s, as well as quarterly and annual company reports to stockholders and the 10-Ks.
    People don’t need to dig that deep if the objective is merely to establish who owns a company. That’s fairly basic stuff.
    But it doesn’t hurt to have decades of research on hundreds of companies to know where to find accurate information.

    1. https://www.washingtonian.com/2015/12/07/jeff-bezoss-ownership-of-the-washington-post-explained-for-donald-trump/
      I think the Washington Post was a publically traded conpany before Bezos took it private about 5 years ago. It seems to be a “stand-alone” company in that it’s not a subsdiary of Amazon.
      The Graham family had a major stake in the WaPo before Bezos took it private, but I don’t know the percentage of ownership the Graham’s held.
      Anyway, we now have one major publication (NY Times) that remains a publically-held company, and Bezos’ WaPo taken private.
      I’m not sure about the status of the Wall Street Journal, but it may have split off from Dow Jones & Co.

      1. Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim Becomes Top Owner of New York Times

        World’s richest man doubles his shares

        January 15, 2015 10:20 am

        After doubling his stake in New York Times, Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has become the top shareholder of the New York Times.

        Reuters reports that Slim has exercised warrants purchased in 2009 that double his holdings in the paper to 16.8 percent. His shares are valued at $341.4 million

        https://freebeacon.com/issues/mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-becomes-top-owner-of-new-york-times/

      2. Carlos Slim becomes top New York Times shareholder

        (Reuters) – Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim has become the largest shareholder of New York Times Co (NYT.N) after exercising warrants to double his stake in the publisher to 16.8 percent.

        Entities affiliated with Slim exercised the warrants he bought in 2009 when he loaned the company $250 million during the height of the financial crisis.

        New York Times, controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through Class B shares, paid back the loan in 2011.

        Slim’s total stake is valued at $341.4 million, based on the stock’s Wednesday closing price of $12.28.

        He follows other billionaires who have put their faith in the media business. Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) founder Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013 while Warren Buffett has invested in several newspapers.

        Slim acquired nearly 15.9 million shares of Class A common stock at $6.36 per share. He earlier held an 8 percent stake.

        New York Times intends to use cash proceeds of about $101.1 million to buy back Class A shares.

        “..This one-off repurchase program should not be viewed as a change of position about our capital allocation plans,” Chief Executive Mark Thompson said.

        New York Times, which has been under pressure to replace an evaporating pool of print advertising dollars with digital ads and money from subscriptions, projected in November a further decline in advertising sales for the current quarter.

        1. Class A Shares vs. Class B Shares: An Overview

          The difference between Class A shares and Class B shares of a company’s stock usually comes down to the number of voting rights assigned to the shareholder. Class A shareholders generally have more clout.

          Class A Shares

          Class A shares are common stocks, as are the vast majority of shares issued. Common shares are an ownership interest in a company and entitle their purchasers to a portion of the profits earned.

          Investors in common shares are usually given at least one vote for each share they hold. They entitle the owners to vote at annual meetings, where board members are elected and company decisions are made.

          If a company falls into bankruptcy and is forced to liquidate, common stock shareholders are the last to be paid after creditors, bondholders, and preferred shareholders.

          Class B Shares

          Theoretically, a company can create any number of classes of shares of common stock. In reality, the decision is usually made in order to concentrate voting power within a certain group of people.

          When more than one class of stock is offered, companies traditionally designate them as Class A and Class B, with Class A carrying more voting rights than Class B shares. Class A shares may offer 10 voting rights per stock held, while class B shares offer only one. It depends on how the company decides to structure its stock.

          https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/062215/what-difference-between-class-shares-and-other-common-shares-companys-stock.asp

  6. https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nyt/institutional-holdings
    There is a lot of easily accessible data on publically- held companies. This is a link to the SEC- required insider trading/ insider ownership filings.
    If the New York Times were a privately- held company owned by “the Jews” or anyone else, it’d be a lot more difficult to “look under the hood” and get detailed information on stock ownership or other aspects of the company.
    If the Trump Organization issued stock to the public, there’d be a lot more detailed information published on it. As a privately- held company, it’s not really possible to get detailed, accurate picture of the company.
    Several months ago I did post a link from a publication that did a comprehensive public records search on the holdings and creditors of the Trump Organization. I don’t remember the name of the publication offhand, but under the circumstances ( privately-owned company), they did a pretty good job of identifying major lenders to and holdings of the Trumps’ company.

    1. Tom, what part of the following do you not understand, and why are you posting about the subject outside of the ongoing discussion?

      Also, if you have point other than trying to muddy the waters, why don’t you state it. Maybe others are fascinated by the machinations of your “research”, but I doubt it.

      “In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States’ newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[36] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[123] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization

      1. Anon says: May 5, 2019 at 1:44 PM

        Tom, what part of the following do you not understand, and why are you posting about the subject outside of the ongoing discussion?

        Tom’s one of those people who wastes a lot of time commenting about the inconsequential. Best not to give him any attention.

        1. If you have something to say on the issue under discussion LT Anonymous, have at it.
          Or stick to what you “know” best…..making bitchy little remarks.

            1. Il Postino-Vir says: May 5, 2019 at 2:37 PM

              “trolls will be trolls . . .”

              Know thyself, Twerp.

  7. Will the BB gun manufacturer be held liable or responsible for this woman’s action?

  8. No matter what the children did, she is violently unstable. I heard that a parent confronted her. I was surprised that the next line didn’t read, “and she was subsequently hogtied” or piled upon. I am curious how that conversation played out.

    Aside from the obviously inexcusable actions, one should note the lack of discipline in schools. Parents excuse bad behavior in their children, and argue with teachers when they complain. Administrators have their hands tied as far as what they can do. If older students are really acting up, and they call the police, the media paints it as police abuse. There is now a proposed law in which children cannot be suspended for willful defiance. What are they left with? “Stop it.” “Or what?” “I’ll keep saying it.”

    There are schools that are violent, Lord of the Flies environment. I know people a couple of towns over who transferred because the local schools were too dangerous.

    This in no way excuses the lunch lady’s egregious assault on students. But it does raise the issue of behavior problems in schools. If I ever cussed out a lunch lady at school, at any age, my father would have probably marched me down to apologize and make reparations. I wouldn’t know, as I never would have dared. I wasn’t raised that way. There seems to be a parenting problem.

    https://youtu.be/-SRCY8FqoyQ

  9. Friends of the victioms should take revenge. Only step up the weapon to a pellet gun. Shoot her in the eyes.

  10. ANON: In the 1930s, the NYT wrote that making “‘Herr Hitler” chancellor of Germany was a good idea because the position would cause him to be more moderate. That worked out well, didn’t it? You might also want to check out the Time’s coverage — actually their lack of truthful coverage — about Stalin starving millions of people in Ukraine.

    1. Gee, you mean the NYTs has had writers advocate for bad ideas or report inaccurate information in it’s long history? That’s terrible!

      No matter what and where you read something, it was written by fallible humans and intelligent skepticism is warranted. Smart people know that doesn’t disqualify the best sources we have for news, or mean you should read only BS that tells you what you want to hear. The former are selling their reputation for accuracy while the latter are selling bedtime stories – both act accordingly.

      1. The NYT has repeatedly coming under fire in recent weeks for anti-semitism, most recently with Trump wearing a yarmulke and walking Netanyahu as a dog. It also promotes BDS.

        It’s history of being a Nazi supporter would be relevant in discussions if someone brings up the sanctity of journalism. They can be wrong, and they have been wrong. As well, its current anti-Semitic Leftist tenor is especially tragic, as one would think it had learned its lesson. It is not a paragon of unassailable virtue.

        1. The NYTs has been owned by a Jewish family since the nineteenth century and is the paper of record and choice in the city with the world’s largest Jewish population.

          1. Yes, The Times is very popular with Jewish readers. Some of my own Jewish friends read it. And yet, it supports anti-semitism such as BDS, just as any Leftist outlet, and it has published a number of anti-Semitic political cartoons, hiding under the guise of anti-Israeli.

            It’s like saying you’re not anti-Muslim, just anti-Mecca.

            So why do Jewish people read a paper that publishes anti-Semitic articles as outlined in other threads on this post? Why do African Americans keep voting for Democrats, when their policies lead to the surge in single motherhood responsible for the very gang violence and poverty plaguing black communities?

            Because of great marketing and habit. Democrats bought the votes of black Americans promising free stuff and a solution to their problems. Since the design of benefit programs make it costly to get off of them, they keep voting for more of that.

            When you get black or Jewish Americans putting two and two together, you get Candace Owens or Ben Shapiro.

            1. Karen claims to not be a racist or antisemite but above posts her opinion that Jews and blacks are too stupid to vote correctly and even identify their own interests.

              1. In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online comment-ing frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

                Buckels, E. E., et al. Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2014.01.016

              2. Anon, excuse me, are you calling me a racist and an anti-Semite because I believe Democrat policies are against their self interest?

                What a despicable, vicious libel from someone unable to debate ideas.

                1. Karen, here’s what I posted and I stand behind it:

                  “Karen claims to not be a racist or antisemite but above posts her opinion that Jews and blacks are too stupid to vote correctly and even identify their own interests.”

                  Elsewhere she slanders “the left” as being anti-semitic while failing to discuss the identity of the two assassins who killed Jews in American synagogues.

                  Given that Jews in America are as a group among the best educated and informed of all our citizens, and that blacks as a group are not able to afford the luxury of wasting their votes on non-essential issues – they were almost all Republicans after the civil war and up into the 1920s when that party became the standard bearer for plutocrats – her belief that the white party knows best for them is not selling for obvious reasons.

                  I doubt Karen is an anti-semite. A better description would be a partisan hack and true believer who is clearly ill informed by the right wing sources she mindlessly but abundantly parrots on this board.

                2. Karen S says: May 4, 2019 at 6:41 PM

                  “Anon, excuse me, are you calling me . . . an anti-Semite . . . What a despicable, vicious libel . . .”

                  Karen called The NYT anti-Semitic. Was that libelous? Karen called the Democratic party anti-Semitic. Was that libelous? How many Jews will Karen accuse of being anti-Semites? And will Karen repeat her accusations against Jewish anti-Semites every last single time that a true anti-Semite commits a mass shooting of Jews? Why? Are the mass-shootings of Jews by true anti-Semites some sort of triggering mechanism for Karen’s accusations against Jewish anti-Semites? Why?

                  Contributed by The L4d–Are-You-Looking-At-Me, I-Don’t-See-Anyone-Else-Here, You-Must-Be-Looking-At-Me–Project

          2. The New York Times (stock symbol NYT) is a PUBLICALLY- TRADED stock, owned by the stockholders.
            Mexican billionaire Carlos Sims is one of the biggest stockholders of the company, but I didn’t bother to check to see if Sims was Jewish.🤭
            The major stockholders are easy to identify from public filings.
            Anyone can go out and buy stock in NYT at the opening bell Monday morning.
            Gentiles can buy and own their stock, too. Incredibly😲, they will pay the same price as Jews who buy NYT stock.
            Geez, this site is getting to be a terrific place to post wildly inaccurate “facts’.

            1. Tom, posted previously:

              “In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States’ newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[36] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[123] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.”

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization

              1. Anon,
                When did I posted what you just claimed that I posted?
                I’d like to know how I got “credited” for something I didn’t say.

                1. Is”Anon” another one of L4B’s sock puppets?
                  I only ask because of the similarities in “crediting” me with statements I never made. –Tom ( this might post as “anonymous” due to no log-in space below this comment).

                    1. LT Anonymous would not recognize a soak puppet if one bit her on the ***. There clearly have been cases here where that’s happened.
                      When I see similar phrases, stunts, etc. showing up under different aliases used here, it does raise that question ifsock puppets playing games.

                    2. As long as LT Anonymous sticks with what she’s familiar with…..jumping into exchanges with snotty little remarks, posting links, and quoting others….she should do just fine.
                      Coming up with an original thought would be way too much of a strain on her, so a continuation of years of following the same pattern is in line with the limits of her capabilities.
                      I don’t think there has ever been one instance where Long Term Anonymous has factually challenged anything I’ve ever written. Piggybacking on to what others have written is all she’s got.

                    3. Feel free to repeat what I’ve already said in the same thread, LT Anonymous.

                2. Tom, sorry For clarity I should have “I posted previously”. Though my statement was correct English. There was a comma between “Tom” and “posted previously”

                  1. PS However, more importantly, the Wikipedia quote disproves the implication of your post as well as Estovir’s which claimed I was liar. Of course he is not man enough to admit when he is wrong and that is the 2nd time in a day. He’s out on 2 strikes.

                    1. Thanks for the clarification, Anon. I presented facts about the New York Times (Symbol: NYT) as a publically traded company owned by its stockholders. I don’t know how or why you stated that there was some questionable “implication” in that comment about the NYT stock and the ownership of that company .
                      I posted that comment because of your claim that it was owned by Jews. That claim was not correct.

                    2. Tom, control of the NYT’s is clearly in the hands of the family which has owned it since the late 19th century. My post makes that clear, regardless of who owns Class A stocks.

                      The relevance of this is to Karen and Estovir’s claim that the newspaper is anti-semitic – a ridiculous statement on it’s face – is also clear.

                    3. Anon,
                      Do some research on the ownership of the New York Times. I don’t plan on spending the remainder of the weekend doing it all for you, but you have numerous articles, SEC filings, etc. that will show that the company is owned by and answerable to it’s stockholders. Those stockholders are numerous, and they are not all Jewish.

                    4. Tom, I already have researched the ownership of the NYTs, and if I felt I needed help, you would be among the last I would ask for help.

        2. Karen, you are correct.

          The following is an honest analysis of the antisemitism at NYT

          ——-

          The New York Times’ antisemitic cartoon, its non-apology and the silence of the “anti-Zionist not antisemitic” crowd

          Bibi Netanyahu, with a large Star of David around his neck, is a seeing eye dog leading a blind Donald Trump.

          This image trades in the classic antisemitic tropes of the Jew as a dog, of Jews secretly controlling the US, as this Serbian antisemitic poster from the 1940s shows a Jew acting as a puppet master over both Churchill and Stalin.

          Or this Arab cartoon during the 2008 presidential campaign.

          If the cartoon was only that, the New York Times could excuse it as just a giant dog whistle that was meant only to criticize Israel and Trump, that was published by an “error in judgment.” Which is exactly what it did:

          But how can anyone explain the yarmulke on Trump’s head?

          No matter how much one wants to stretch one’s imagination, it is impossible to look at this cartoon and not see the blatantly antisemitic message. Not a “trope,” not a “dog-whistle” to antisemites – a cartoon that would have fit perfectly, unaltered, in Der Sturmer. Trump isn’t merely a puppet – he is a Jew himself, making him even more odious.

          Saying that this is Nazi-level antisemitism is not hyperbole. The neo-Nazi Daily Stormer said that “the image of the blind man Trump being led by the Jewish dog Netanyahu is such a powerfully accurate portrayal of their relationship.”

          The editorial pages of any major newspaper has multiple editors that stories and cartoons have to pass by. Seth Frantzman of the Jerusalem Post says that there are four such checkpoints in his newspaper. I know from speaking to people who have worked at the NYT that the gauntlet that pro-Israel op-ed writers have to go through to get published is crazy, much more than anti-Israel op-ed writers have to go through.

          Lahav Harkov, of the Jerusalem Post, reports “Source tells me NY Times office in NY was genuinely surprised and disturbed by the cartoon. Someone in the International NY Times office in France should answer for this.” I believe this; the US edition of the NYT is and has been rabidly anti-Israel and anti-Zionist for a century but it doesn’t often cross the line this egregiously. And, as Mark Horowitz notes, the international edition of the NYT has a much more anti-Israel vibe than even the US edition in an front page example earlier this month:

          Mark Horowitz
          @MarkHorowitz
          · Apr 27, 2019
          Replying to @LahavHarkov
          As I understand, in 2016 basically shut down Paris (except some ad and admin stuff) and consolidated and expanded the editorial operation for the International edition in London with more editors.

          Mark Horowitz
          @MarkHorowitz
          International edition feels more anti-Israel, maybe because audience for it is. Israel features heavily, and only International puts Op Eds on front page. Never in US. So you get front pages that look like this: pic.twitter.com/RYtbWh3sFE
          4:15 PM – Apr 27, 2019

          The conclusion? European antisemitism has been so mainstreamed, under the umbrella of “anti-Zionism,” that the average NYT International Edition editor in Paris sees nothing at all wrong with a cartoon that treats Jews exactly the way Nazi propaganda did.

          The New York Times’ reaction is nearly as bad as the cartoon itself. It never said it apologizes, it doesn’t say “sorry,” it merely makes it sound like an honest mistake. There is no soul-searching, no promises to overhaul the editorial cartoon approval process, no investigative articles in its own newspaper as of yet about how it could have made such a “mistake.” It minimizes the offensiveness of the cartoon by merely saying it engages in antisemitic “tropes,” when in fact is is pure Jew-hatred.

          Their mishandling of this explicit Jew-hatred in its pages means we can expect more such “oversights.”

          It is also notable that the usual anti-Zionist crowd was almost gleeful to be able to condemn the shooting at the Chabad synagogue near San Diego yesterday, in order to prove how much they are against anti-semitism and implying that the shooting proves that the only antisemitism is from white nationalists, not from their liberal friends. Not one of them – Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, J-Street – that condemned the shootings said a negative word about the New York Times.

          Which proves once again that they aren’t against antisemitism at all unless it conforms with their fiction that the only Jew-hatred is from the Right. That is not exactly a brave position to take.

          This is a pivotal moment, and the reactions so far to this cartoon indicate that the US is well on its way to become as blind to certain types of antisemitism as Europe has been for years.

          https://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-new-york-times-antisemitic-cartoon.html

          1. The shooting at the Chabad synagogue near San Diego was not a political cartoon published in The NYT. Il Postino Boy can’t tell the difference between a political cartoon versus a mass shooting of Jews at a synagogue. Or maybe he can, but Il Postino Boy prefers to befog and befuddle the difference between a political cartoon versus a mass shooting of Jews at a synagogue. Why?

            Well . . . No one would accuse Il Postino Boy of being an anti-Semite after he accuses The NYT of being anti-Semitic. Because, no true anti-Semite would ever accuse anyone else of being an anti-Semite. That would be “illogical” on the face of it. And yet, Il Postino Boy’s behavior was clearly triggered by the mass shooting of Jews at the Chabad synagogue near San Diego. Why?

            Contributed by The L4D–Forgive-Them-Father-For-They-Know-Not-What-They-Do–Project

      2. The New York Times ’ Anti-Semitism Is Shocking, but Not Surprising – Yahoo News

        This week, the New York Times got itself into hot water for printing a blatantly Jew-hating cartoon in its international edition. The cartoon depicted Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an elongated dachshund, a Star of David hanging around his neck, leading a fat, blind, yarmulke-wearing Donald Trump through the streets. The implication: The nefarious, animalistic Jew is in control of the Jew-perverted president of the United States.

        The image is nothing new. In 1940, the Lustige Blatter, a weekly German humor magazine, printed an image of a tall, ugly, bearded Hasidic Jew taking a tiny Winston Churchill by the hand and leading him across the surface of the globe.

        So, what would tempt the New York Times to print an illustration directly from the mind of Julius Streicher? The fact that the Times, like many of today’s mainstream media outlets, has been completely and utterly willing to cover for and, indeed, engage in anti-Semitism, so long as it is disguised as anti-Zionism. Undoubtedly, the editors at the Times believed that the cartoon was merely a criticism of Israel, not a criticism of Jews. That excuse found its logical apotheosis in a 2014 German regional-court ruling that characterized a firebombing of a synagogue as merely a protest against Israel, rather than act of anti-Semitism.

        The Times isn’t far behind that court. In the past few months alone, the Times ran a long piece praising the terrorist-backed Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel — a movement whose founders explicitly describe it as an economic attempt to destroy the Jewish state. The author of that piece, Nathan Thrall, had previously praised Hamas’s violence against Israel, calling its terrorism the “direct result of the choice by Israel and the West.” Unsurprisingly, the Washington Free Beacon has reported that Thrall is “tied to a large network of BDS supporters that are funded into the millions by the Qatari government.” The Times made no mention of his affiliation.

        The Times ardently defended Representative Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) against charges of anti-Semitism, even suggesting that her anti-Semitic attribution of American support for Israel to Jewish money was an important consciousness-raising exercise. Their headline: “Ilhan Omar’s Criticism Raises the Question: Is Aipac Too Powerful?”

        The Times suggested that information about Palestinian payments to families of terrorists was “far-right conspiracy programming.” The Times simply ignored Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas’s calling U.S. ambassador David Friedman “son of a dog,” didn’t report Abbas’s comments about Jews “falsifying history,” and omitted coverage of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar telling Palestinians about to storm the Israeli border, “We will take down the border, and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies.”

        Back in 2015, the New York Times printed a list of lawmakers who voted against the anti-Israel Iran deal — listing them by the percentage of Jews in their districts and noting which ones were Jewish themselves. Back in 2014, the publisher of the newspaper, Margaret Sullivan, had to remind her own reporters to cover the Palestinians as “more than just victims,” thanks to the paper’s insanely one-sided coverage.

        The Times’ ugly record of anti-Semitism goes all the way back to 2000, when the newspaper printed a photo of a Jewish student beaten by Palestinian Arabs and defended by an Israeli soldier – but captioned the photo by labeling the beaten man an Arab.

        In actuality, the Times cares about anti-Semitism only when it can be used as a political weapon. The Times admitted in November that it had neglected to cover anti-Semitic hate crimes in New York City specifically because such anti-Semitism “refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy,” explaining that “when a Hasidic man or woman is attacked by anyone in New York City, mainstream progressive advocacy groups do not typically send out emails calling for concern and fellowship and candlelight vigils in Union Square.”

        The mainstream Left has engaged in self-flattering blindness when it comes to Jew-hatred. And all too often, that blindness veers into outright anti-Semitism.

        https://news.yahoo.com/york-times-anti-semitism-shocking-202012687.html

        1. The NYTs has been owned by a Jewish family since the nineteenth century and is the paper of record and choice in the city with the world’s largest Jewish population.

          1. repeating your fake statements do not make them more credible but definitely discredits you in your future rants

            David Brock needs to send us better trolls as you are highly ineffective

            ANTI-SEMITISM AT THE NEW YORK TIMES

            https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/anti-semitism-at-the-new-york-times.php

            The Democratic Party, following in the steps of Britain’s Labour Party, is sinking ever deeper into anti-Semitism. Now it’s the Democrats’ house organ, the New York Times.

            1. The NYTs has been owned by a Jewish family since the nineteenth century and is the paper of record and choice in the city with the world’s largest Jewish population.

              1. In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online comment- ing frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

                Buckels, E. E., et al. Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2014.01.016

              2. Anon, you keep remarking the same thing – that a defense of the Times is its Jewish readership. Why not address the anti-Semitic examples?

                For instance, I wrote exactly why I believed the meme that Trump forwarded was not an anti-Semitic gesture, and why. If you don’t think that any of what the Times published was anti-Semitic, explain why.

                1. Karen, your excuse for Trump’s tweets doesn’t hold water. The tweet was lifted from a racist site and featured a Star of David against a background of dollar bills, sending exactly the same message as Omar did in her comments. I was fair in my writing on this and noted Trump’s family, but this incident which you have misrepresented is not the only one – he has also accused Soros of funding protesters and migrants while his lawyer called him an anti-christ. Trump somehow never manages to denounce the alt right racist support he has and even repeats their memes.

                  You started the anti-semite BS, so if you want to go down that road and paint “the left” as anti-semites because of the beliefs and actions of some, die by the same sword.

                  Accusing the Jewish owned NYTs of being anti-semitic because some writers criticized Israeli policy is ludicrous and disgusting.

                    1. From that link:

                      “Trump twice retweeted from the feed of the Twitter account @WhiteGenocideTM, which claims to be located in “Jewmerica” and regularly posts anti-Semitic material, and once from the now-defunct account @cheesedbrit, which had an account page that featured Swastika art and said in part, “we Should have listened to the Austrian chap with the little moustache” — that is, Adolf Hitler. ”

                      Maybe Karen can explain Steve King for us, since she seems to think conservatives can’t be anti-semites.

                    2. “Maybe Karen can explain Steve King for us, since she seems to think conservatives can’t be anti-semites.”

                      When did I say a conservative could not be anti-semitic? An anti-semite could be a fiscal conservative.

                      Are you aware that you can forward on a meme or saying without knowing who created it or what they stand for? I post funny memes all the time, especially horse ones. Any one of them could have been generated by a completely evil person, with a horrifying online presence. I would have no idea.

                      These memes and Tweets show up all over the place. If you have ever quoted a NYT article, then you have linked to a publication with serious anti-semitic issues. A lot of Russian memes are out there on social media, including both anti-conservative and anti-Leftist, as the goal is to destabilize the US. It’s working, with the gleeful cooperation of Democrats.

                      If there was a joke or a funny meme about Jeb Bush, Trump was going to forward it. This is also why presidents should employ a similar team as they do for speechwriters, in which dozens of people have the full time job of combing over every syllable on paper for issues. Has Trump made an anti-semitic remark, like Ilham Omar has? No. He is not an anti-semite. I know this is difficult for many to understand in political trench warfare, but the truth matters. The truth is that Trump makes mean comments. Trump is not an anti-semite.

                      False logic. Again. Honestly, Anon, you lost me when you accused me of being a racist anti-semite. The constant stream of false logic has run through almost all of the top ten most common fallacies. If you are going to resort to ad hominem against me, to that disgusting degree, then there is no point in speaking with such a low character.

                    3. Well, this was apropos. I just received a reminder of an upcoming gymkhana event in my state. The logo of the rangers putting it on is, you guessed it, a 6 pointed sheriff’s badge.

                      The only reason why a 6 pointed sheriff’s badge without any internal lines, or any reference to Judaism, would be considered anti-Semitic, is because Trump forwarded it.

                      Shall the rangers in my town, along with various police agencies across America, be drummed out because their badge has 6 points, or does that rhetoric only apply to Trump?

                      Anti-semitism is a deadly serious accusation. The accusation should not be misused for political purposes, or against people who are innocent of any ill intent. There should be no doubt.

                      Serious accusations of racism or anti-semitism are not words to throw about just for political gain. They are supposed to mean something.

                    4. Karen, when you label “the left” as anti-semitic, or Democrats as morally corrupt, you are making an ad hominem attack on me and millions of Americans. Forgive me if I take offense at your BS.

                      By the way Karen, were the two assassins who killed Jews in American synagogues this year from “the left”?

                    5. Karen S says: May 4, 2019 at 10:26 PM

                      “Anti-semitism is a deadly serious accusation. The accusation should not be misused for political purposes, or against people who are innocent of any ill intent.”

                      So you were, by your own express admission, deadly serious when you accused The NYT, the Democratic party and The Left of anti-Semitism. Weren’t you?

                      Nor were you misusing that accusation of anti-Semitism against The NYT, the Democratic party, nor The Left, for “political purposes–also by dint your own professed dicta. Or were you?

                      Contributed by The L4D–Constant-Stream-Of-False-Confessors-Revealed–Project

                  1. you started the anti-semite BS….

                    “The Times’ ugly record of anti-Semitism goes all the way back to 2000, when the newspaper printed a photo of a Jewish student beaten by Palestinian Arabs and defended by an Israeli soldier – but captioned the photo by labeling the beaten man an Arab.”

                    – Ben (Leftists say he is not a Jew) Shapiro

                    😘

                    1. from above

                      “In actuality, the Times cares about anti-Semitism only when it can be used as a political weapon. The Times admitted in November that it had neglected to cover anti-Semitic hate crimes in New York City specifically because such anti-Semitism “refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy,” explaining that “when a Hasidic man or woman is attacked by anyone in New York City, mainstream progressive advocacy groups do not typically send out emails calling for concern and fellowship and candlelight vigils in Union Square.”

                      The mainstream Left has engaged in self-flattering blindness when it comes to Jew-hatred. And all too often, that blindness veers into outright anti-Semitism.”

                    2. Gee, that incident must surely have not been a reporters mistake and reveals the NYT’s owners joy in seeing Jews beaten up. There is no other explanation.

                    3. The NYT’s prints columns from many viewpoints, but none of them I have ever seen can be described as anti-semitic. Given that my wife and therefore my kids – and also large extended family – are Jewish I am attuned to it. Publishing varying viewpoints does not constitute an endorsement of the view. It published articles both critical and supportive of Omar as it does Netanyahu. There are anti-semites on the left and there are anti-semites on the right and the latter for some reason are strong supporters of Trump, who somehow occasionally tweets or otherwise passes on their racist memes. Whether he means to or not is an open question, but you lie down with dogs and get fleas. Maybe you righties trying to use anti-semitism as a weapon might clean your own flea ridden house. It has most of the US anti-semites in it and they are not just anti-Israel.

                    4. Il Postino Boy says: May 4, 2019 at 4:45 PM

                      [The National Review says The New York Times said], “when a Hasidic man or woman is attacked by anyone in New York City, mainstream progressive advocacy groups do not typically send out emails calling for concern and fellowship and candlelight vigils in Union Square.”

                      Quote mining from The National Review copied and pasted without any critical reading from Il Postino Boy.

                      Chances are that if an attack on a Hasidic Jew in New York City could be linked to anti-Semitism rather than a random, opportunistic mugging or the like street crime, then the Hasidic Community in New York City would “send out emails calling for concern and fellowship and candlelight vigils in Union Square.”

                      Contributed by The L4D–Canary-In-A-Quote-Mine–Project

                  2. Accusing the Jewish owned….

                    dog whistle much?

                    The single largest shareholder of the NYT Company is a Catholic Mexican billionaire: Carlos Slim Helú

                    The co-founder of the NYT was Henry Jarvis Raymond, a Methodist Christian, known as the Godfather of the Republican Party

                    you just cant stop lying

                    1. as above

                      Henry Jarvis Raymond (January 24, 1820 – June 18, 1869) was an American journalist, politician, and co-founder of The New York Times, which he founded with George Jones. He was a member of the New York State Assembly, Lieutenant Governor of New York, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, and elected to the House of Representatives. For his contribution towards the formation of the Republican Party, Raymond has sometimes been called the “godfather of the Republican Party”

                      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jarvis_Raymond

                    2. That’s 2nd time you’ve accused me of lying when you were completely wrong on the facts. That makes you either a liar or a fool – I’ll guess the 2nd, but overall I think the proper adjective for you would be AH.

                      I said a Jewish family has owned the NYTs since the nineteenth century, AH.

                      “In 1896, Adolph Ochs bought The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper, and formed the New York Times Company. The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States’ newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times ever since.[36] The publisher went public on January 14, 1969, trading at $42 a share on the American Stock Exchange.[123] After this, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights.”

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization

                    3. Anon says: May 4, 2019 at 5:25 PM
                      That’s 2nd time you’ve accused me of lying

                      Actually I am the latest addition of commenters on a very growing list of commenters on this forum that has expressed no faith in your delusional writings. The list is long and distinguished but dont let that fact hamper your psychotic breaks.

                      The Mexican Catholic Billionaire of the antisemitic NY Times sends his regards but counts on your subscription fees to keep his rag running.

                  3. No, Anon. It had a 6 pointed star whose name was “sheriff’s badge” in the clip art. It had no internal lines which would make it clearly a SOD. In fact, you can find many police departments in the US use a 6 pointed star. Any anti-Semitic reference would not be obvious at all, as there was no Jewish reference. Hillary is Christian and this appealed to those who wanted to lock her up for accepting and paying alleged bribes.

                    There is no way for most of us to tell who created a meme, what their beliefs are, or which sites it was used on. Everyone forwards memes without knowing any of that.

                    1. Karen, I gave you the link above which demonstrated the source of Trump’s anti-semitic tweet. That link went to the original researchers.

                      Karen, the tweet was copied from an alt-right site and behind the star of David was a background of money. The message was exactly what you have denounced Rep Omar for.

                      https://www.mic.com/articles/147711/donald-trump-s-star-of-david-hillary-clinton-meme-was-created-by-white-supremacists#.1oDmq2RNX

                      Karen, were the two assassins who killed Jews in American synagogues this year from “the left”?

                  4. Soros does fund protestors. He is a wealthy man promoting his own beliefs. Complaining about Soros’ political ideology is not anti-semitic. Complaining about Soros’ Jewish religion, or that it is Jewish money, would be anti-semitic.

                    That’s like saying you cannot object to the Koch Brothers political activism or else you’re anti-Christian.

                    1. Jewish Op-Ed commentators working for The New York Times include: Bret Stephens, David Brooks, Tom Freidman, Paul Krugman and many more besides.

                      Contributed by The L4D That’s How Dumb It Gets Project

                      (In Memory of P. Hill)

                    2. Karen, Soros is a frequent target of alt right anti semitic speakers and web sites, you know the places Trump often goes to for guidance. The fact that TRump – he is the president after all, not a fringe columinist – goes after Soros is despicable in that he is a private citizen who has broken no laws and becuse Trump is feeding the alt right which idolizes him. It’s called a ‘dog whistle”. Look it up.

        2. This is what Democrats don’t understand. Many truely believe they discriminate against conservatives because they are fighting racism and anti-semitism.

          Conservatives believe that opposing Leftism is fighting racism, bigotry, tyranny, and anti-semitism. We have evidence to support this position.

          When Trump ran for President, something like 9 narratives ago, the Left claimed he was anti-Semitic. They claimed that a meme he’d forwarded with Hillary Clinton behind bars with a Sheriff’s Badge, so named on the clip art, and piles of money, was proof positive. There was no evidence that Trump, with all his flaws, was anti-Semitic. The icon was named a badge, and without any internal lines, most did not see it as a SOD. Hillary was Christian, and the allegations against her were pay to play.

          While there was no evidence against Trump being anti-Semitic, and thus that early narrative fell away and was forgotten, there is ample evidence that the Left is anti-Semitic. Anti-Zionism is a poorly veiled anti-semitism. Supporting Palestinian terrorists is considered cool in academia and in Leftist circles now. I saw this trend many years ago, while I was a college student. It wasn’t conservatives who were anti-Semitic. The anti-semites I encountered were far Leftists and some Muslims. Examples of racism in the Left are myriad.

          Democrats do not see the irony that conservatives and they are fighting over the same things – racism and anti-semitism.

          1. Karen, there is evidence of Trump being anti-Semitic. It is not conclusive in my opinion but includes tweets as offensive as Omar’s “money” comments, retweeting statements from known anti-semites, and refusing to denounce anti-semites. On the other side his son-in law is Jewish, his daughter is a converted Jew and so his grandkids are Jewish. He has some right wing Jewish supporters, including Adelson.

            “the Left” is a broad brushstroke used for propaganda, not honest debate.

            There are many conservative anti-semites. That does not make one an anti-semite if they are conservative anymore than being on the left makes you one as you dishonestly are trying to say.

            It is logically possible to be anti-Zionist while not being anti-semitic. I am neither. My wife and extended family are Jewish.

            1. What is the evidence of Trump being anti-Semitic.

              Again, when you raise an accusation like that, provide supporting evidence so that you will either change somoene’s mind, or get a rebuttal.

              Trump’s family is Jewish. Heavily involved in Jewish events. Friends with Nentenyahu. Moved embassy to Jerusalem, which apparently was a promise that none of his predecessors planned to keep. Had Nicki Haley defend Jews to the anti-Semitic UN.

              If Trump is a raging anti-Semite, that is some deep cover for a man who tends to say exactly what he thinks at the time, extemporaneously. If he hates you, you know it, and all of Twitter knows is. What? Do you think this is some decades long game he’s playing, acting like a staunch ally of Israel and defending her to the world only to pull the rug out on his last day?

              1. Since it is Trump’s anti-semitic sounding tweets are common knowledge and this group so far hasn’t shown it warrants the effort it takes to research and post the details of that common knowledge, I recited it, just as you do in your hundreds of attacks you post over the week. You’re not especially strong on details or facts.

                In my posts I didn’t call Trump an anti-semite and said I didn’t find him to be one. He does have a history of not denouncing the racists and nazis who support him. Why would he do that? He’s desperate for approval and also needs the votes. There is little evidence that he has anything like a conscience which would make him put his family before himself.

                1. He’s desperate for approval and also needs the votes

                  And yet Hillary couldn’t beat Trump in the 2016 election. Hillary outspent Trump 3 to 1, Hillary had the left wing news industry pillorying Trump and swallowing her spittle, and yet….and yet….

                  Here you are crying that Trump needs the votes when your gal needed the votes in 2016 and in 2008, but couldn’t muster a fraction of either opponent

                  You should be on your knees before Trump asking you to teach you how he did it, but instead you’re still…..

                  1. Hillary beat Trump by 3 million votes. The “left wing news industry” ran front page after front page on the Comey letter and wiki leaks emails.

                    1. Bingo! And Hillary won 4 states by a combined margin of 92,000 votes. And 4,000,000 of those “3,000,000 Hillary won the popular vote by” were from Governor Moonbeam Territory.
                      I mention that people like Natacha and Anon can not help themselves from robotically repeating themselves hundreds of times, and 2 1/2 years after the election was over…….and then, the next day , “anon”, proves my point.😄😃😂🤣.

                    2. Tom repeats himself again denouncing other posters on the same subject as obsessive and restating his opposition to counting votes from the state who’s economy on it’s own ranks 5th in the world.

                    3. The fact that let it go “the first several hundred times these morons repeated the TDS mantras does not mean that I would NEVER comment on that facet of the TDS Group.
                      Anyone can go through the archives to see the virtually endless whining by Natacha/ Anon/ Anonymous about the 2016 election.
                      Those comments from the same TDS loonies are certainly in the hundreds, maybe in the thousands by now.
                      So, year, eventually I will point out lame, dumb-ass excuses/ comments when the same fools keep swamping these threads with their virtually identical mantras.

                    4. You go Tom! I don’t know who or what TDS is but these animals must be stopped from writing almost 1/4 of the posts on this wing nut infested echo chamber of a site. If you are not able without interruption to take up even more bandwidth gossiping with your buds about L4D, or absurd telling people to get off his yard or Karen writing 150 word screeds lifted from Mark Levin & Michael Weiner, and Estovir reposting from ….. wherever, while Allan tries to keep up, what is freedom for?

                      This will not stand!

                2. Trump is on video, on audio, and in writing often and repeatedly denouncing racists and nazis. And yet, the Democratic arm of the media, also known as the mainstream media, typically asks him why he hasn’t denounced them. It is frustrating and deliberate. This is one the reasons why the media is labeled fake news. They destroy their credibility with their political activism, trying to affect the outcome of elections with selective and misleading reporting.

                  There were 4 groups at Charlottesville. One group peacefully protested the removal of a Robert E Lee statue from their local park. The statue was being removed against the wishes of the locals. The second group was peacefully protesting the first group’s peaceful protest. Fine people on both sides. The third group was racist, violently protesting. The fourth group was Antifa and the like, violently protesting. Both sides were to blame. Both sides deliberately clashed to create violence.

                  In the entirety of his comments that day, Trump clearly, and repeatedly, said he was not talking about the racists when he said there were fine people there that day, but rather the peaceful people protesting the removal of a statue, an issue that Professor Turley has discussed.

                  The Democrat Propaganda media edited out most of Trump’s comments and boiled it down to a single phrase, now used as the bedrock of Biden’s campaign. That foundation is based upon a lie. Trump most emphatically did not call racists fine people, and it is dishonest to say that he did.

                  For you to say that Trump did not denounce racists and Nazis shows that you did not bother to do a simple GOOGLE or Youtube search, and made an accusation devoid of fact. Again.

                  1. Karen, Trump has denounced “all racism” but has not named the racists groups which strongly support him and did the Nuremburg in Charlottesville which he apparently found – as do you – had.redeeming qualities.

                    Speaking of facts, which you are avoiding, he has several times retweeted directly from the alt-right, as in the “Hillary and Jewish money” tweet we discussed above and which you pretended was just misunderstood. By him maybe – maybe not – but he failed to denounce the source and apologize when it became clear who they were and what they intended

                    Lastly, were the two assassins who murdered Jews in synagogues in Americas this year from “the left”?

                    Karen, you are willfully blind as a bat. Can you get that fixed before posting again? OK?

  11. Would that all mass shootings could be as serious and violent as this one. I am most surprised that the media didn’t characterize the gun as an “Assault Rifle” as that is the only firearm term the mass media knows. Surely this was an “Assault BB Gun” que no? Why are people not screaming to ban BB guns when it is obvious they can be used in school shootings. Where the hell are the anti-gun folks when you need them?

    1. Where the hell are the anti-gun folks when you need them?

      Celebrating the decapitation of infants seconds after they are delivered by butchers like Dr Ralph “gimme some blackface” Northam

  12. “some kids are unwanted, so you kill them now or kill them later.” – John Rogers.
    .
    If I don’t get [the kids] now, I will get them tomorrow.” – Marie McWilliams,
    .
    I guess it’s never too early to get on board with the Democrats 2020 Platform.

    1. Ralph Northam is still governor of Virginia and no one in the Dem caucus batted an eye when he made his most recent announcement of hiring a diversity officer

      Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam is hiring a new top diversity officer
      https://pilotonline.com/news/government/politics/virginia/article_127e938e-6dc2-11e9-b40e-b7ac51587b61.html

      So there you have it
      – Dems crow about killing a developing baby including the moment the baby is delivered
      – Dems embrace a white guy who wore black face and KKK attire

      But they are all about families and anti-racism

      Next stop: Dems spy on their political opponents and use the FBI DOJ to overthrow a President but decry obstructionism and collusion

        1. PS The FBI, led by a Republican “spied” – surveillance is the proper term, but whatever – on a campaign official who had bragged about getting stolen documents of their opponent from a hostile power.

          As a footnote to this incident, the Mueller report revealed that at least 2 foreign individuals had heard this brag, but when Trump campaign officials were interviewed about it, no one could “remember” Papadope telling them.

          1. PS The FBI, led by a Republican “spied” –

            Again, David Brock needs to update the talking points. James Comey was registered to vote in Virginia, which has no party registration. He later re-registered in DC, which does have party registration. Only he didn’t enroll as a Republican.

            It’s not terribly difficult to discern that Rosenstein, Comey, and Mueller are genus Justice-Department-Lifer. That’s who their tribe is and that’s who they’ve been protecting.

          2. I think Papadopolous testified that he relayed an offer to a Trump campaign member that Trump could meet with Russian officials.
            I don’t know if Papadopolous heard that offer from Mifsud or “Putin’s niece”.
            Papadopoulos said nothing came of it when he gave that message to someone in the Trump campaign.
            I haven’t seen any evidence that he mentioned ( to the Trump campaign;
            the emails that could be damaging to the Hillary campaign.
            The Australian (Downer) was interviewed and he recounted that Papadopolous mentioned that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary, but did not specify emails.
            If it’s true that Fox News/ Napolitano reported the Russian possession of DNC emails on May 9th, 2016, then the date that Papadopolous and Downer had their conversation is critical.
            I’ll try to find the article that stated both Downer and Papadopolous said their conversation was in May 10th.
            (The Mueller Report has it occurring on May 9).
            The FBI warned the DNC twice in late 2015 that information from their computers was being transmitted to the Russians.
            I don’t think this was publically known until mid-2016, but their were obviously people in the FBI and the DNC that knew something was up with their computers months before WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.
            Mifsud seems to have “disappeared” once the heat was on Papadopoulos.
            In an interview, an Italian claiming to be Mifsud’s friend said that Mifsud was in Italy, keeping a low profile.
            He also said that Mifsud was an American asset; i.e., he worked with the American Intel community.
            Since I haven’t read the OSC report, I don’t know what it says about Mifsud.
            I think the FBI did briefly detain and interview him ( Mifsud) shortly before he dropped out of sight.
            Papadopolous has very recently been pushing back against some of the information in the Mueller report, but I haven’t followed the details of that, either.

            1. Why would Papdope tell strangers in bars but no one in the campaign he worked for and which would obviously be the most interested?

              1. This was intially reported as a “chance meeting” in a London bar where a supposedly drunk Papadopoulos told Downer what Mifsud had told him weeks earlier about the Russian possession of emails damaging to the Clinton campaign.
                It appears that was not the case. The meeting was set up by third parties. I’m going by summaries that I’ve read of FBI and OSC material, as well as Papadopolous’ and Downer’s statements.
                Papadopolous has stated that he suspected that Downer was taping their conversation. If there is such a thing and it surfaces, it could clear up some murky areas involving their exchange in the London bar.
                That’s unlikely, so we’re basically stuck with Papadopoulos’and Downer’s recollections of the conversation. Which seems to be mostly in synch.
                I think we have a pretty good idea what Mifsud told Papadopolous, what Papadopolous told Downer, and then what Downer later told the FBI. ( It’d help to get further testimony from Mifsud and clarification of who he was in contact with, and who he was really working for, but we don’t have that).
                I think what I’ve presented is accurate, and if it’s not, or if there are key omissions, I’d like to correct/ fill in what I’ve presented.
                I said there was no evidence that he passed on the email info to anyone in the Trump campaign, and you have produced none. “Why wouldn’t he have” is not evidence.
                I can think of some reasons why he would not have, especially as a recent and minor advisor to the Trump campaign.He may not have had the kind of direct access to senior campaign staff, and didn’t want to pass on what he’d heard from Mifsud to those he did have access to. He may not have had confidence that Mifsud knew what he was talking about, and didn’t want to risk looking like a fool if he passed on info from someone who was “blowing smoke”. He may have been “coaxed” into talking about it by Downer, but was not led into recounting the Mifsud information by anyone in the Trump campaign.
                I can probably think of other reasons, but that part of it is sheer speculation. As is the assumption that he “must have” told someone in the Trump campaign about his encounter with Mifsud. If there’s no evidence to support that assumption, it’s not up to me to prove that it DIDN’T happen.

                  1. Anon asked a question, strongly implying that Papadopolous told the Trump campaign about the emails the Russians had from the DNC. ( Mifsud was not that specific, but the “damaging emails to the Hillary campaign turned out to be from the DNC).
                    I’ve reviewed the details of the Papadopoulos/ Downer/ Mifsud contacts and exchanges in case anyone is interested.
                    Anon is more interested in posting one or two sentence guesses/ questions/ statements/ speculation rather than reviewing what is known (or what Papadopolous has recently claimed) about his 2016 activities.

                    1. Gee, Tom, be sure to keep Barr and Mueller informed of your investigations.

                      Did you get a magnifying glass and Sherlock Holmes pipe with your Detective kit at Christmas?

                    2. PS Tom, this is covered in the Mueller report and what I stated is from that source. So, yes, I think that is sufficient information, and not dependent on what Papadope says unless he admits to telling others in the campaign, also a highly unlikely event. Anything else he says is either irrelevant or potentially self serving, while the other London witnesses would have no knowledge of what he told the campaign.

              1. The OSC Report is not necessarily infallible. If there is a discrepancy in the date that Papadopolous met with Downer, that is not “irrelevant”.

                1. It is irrelevant to the fact that it is highly unlikely Papadope told strangers of the Russian offers of emails but not anyone in the Trump campaign. All in that gang of weasels who were asked about it by the Mueller team were unable to “remember” him telling them about this find.

                  What Tom’s “research” is relevant to is for him to explain I suppose.

                  1. Anon,
                    Tell us what the Mueller Report said about Papadopolous relaying his conversation with Mifsud to the Trump campaign.

                    1. Also, what strangerS did Papadopoulos tell about the Mifsud conversation. It’s known that he vaguely referenced that conversation when he met with Australian diplomat Downer. What other “strangers” did he talk to about the Mifsud conversation?

        2. NY Times is an antiemetic rag that pushes fake news, lies and regularly publishes apologies for poor journalistic practices

          supporting an antisemitic organization is despicable

          —-

          Alan Dershowitz among protesters outside New York Times offices decrying anti-Semitic cartoon

          The demonstrators on Monday night chanted “shame on you” and carried signs reading “Anti-Israel, Anti-Semitic, NYT Guilty” and “NYT guilty of 120 years of hatred,” as well as a sign with a yellow Star of David that read “NYT, should I be wearing this too?” among others.

          The newspaper in a first statement acknowledged that the image was “offensive” and “included anti-Semitic tropes.” A second statement on Sunday said the newspaper was “deeply sorry” and that the decision to publish the image was the product of “a faulty process” resulting in “a single editor working without adequate oversight.”

          https://www.jta.org/2019/04/30/israel/alan-dershowitz-among-protesters-outside-new-york-times-offices-decrying-anti-semitic-cartoon

          1. The NYTs has been owned by a Jewish family since the 19th century and thrives in the city with the largest Jewish population in the world.

              1. The NYTs has been owned by a Jewish family since the 19th century and thrives in the city with the largest Jewish population in the world.

                1. In two online studies (total N = 1215), respondents completed personality inventories and a survey of their Internet commenting styles. Overall, strong positive associations emerged among online comment- ing frequency, trolling enjoyment, and troll identity, pointing to a common construct underlying the measures. Both studies revealed similar patterns of relations between trolling and the Dark Tetrad of personality: trolling correlated positively with sadism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism, using both enjoyment ratings and identity scores. Of all personality measures, sadism showed the most robust associations with trolling and, importantly, the relationship was specific to trolling behavior. Enjoyment of other online activities, such as chatting and debating, was unrelated to sadism. Thus cyber-trolling appears to be an Internet manifestation of everyday sadism.

                  Buckels, E. E., et al. Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.paid.2014.01.016

            1. Anon lying yet again: the city with the largest Jewish population in the world

              you just cant stop lying

              Rank
              Jewish Population
              % of World Jewry
              1, Tel Aviv, Israel, 3,468,500, 23.9%
              https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/largest-jewish-populated-metropolitan-areas-worldwide

              ——-

              Jewish population by city as a percentage of total population (list does not include cities in Israel)

              Rank City Country Percent Number
              1 Qırmızı Qəsəbə[66] Azerbaijan 100 3,300
              2 Kiryas Joel[67] United States 99 22,000
              3 Deal United States 91 600[citation needed]
              4 Beachwood[68] United States 90.4 10,700
              5 Hampstead[69] Canada 74.2 5,170
              6 Côte-Saint-Luc[70] Canada 69.1 20,146
              7 Lakewood[71] United States 59 59,607
              8 Teaneck[72] United States 50 18,000
              9 Livingston United States 46 12,600[citation needed]
              10 Caulfield North[73] Australia 41.1 8619
              11 Elstree, Hertfordshire[74] United Kingdom 36.0 1,840
              12 Caulfield South[75] Australia 33.9 4,008
              13 Rose Bay[76] Australia 27.3 2,744
              14 Radlett, Hertfordshire[77][78] United Kingdom 26.28 2,579
              15 Sarcelles[79] France 25 15,000
              16 Mercer Island[80] United States 25 5,000
              17 St Kilda East[81] Australia 24.8 3,246
              18 Créteil[82] France 24.4 22,000
              19 Vaucluse[83] Australia 23.2 2,163
              20 Westmount[84] Canada 23.2 4,495
              21 Bellevue Hill[85] Australia 21.4 2,300
              22 Dollard-des-Ormeaux[86] Canada 21.1 10,115
              23 Shenley, Hertfordshire[87] United Kingdom 15.7 864
              24 New York City[88] United States 18 1,540,000
              25 Elsternwick[89] Australia 17.8 1,846
              26 Bushey, Hertfordshire[citation needed] United Kingdom 17.65 4,546
              27 Vaughan[citation needed] Canada 15.28 43,760
              28 Bondi[90] Australia 12.7 1,272
              29 Borehamwood, Hertfordshire[citation needed] United Kingdom 12.22 3,906
              30 Mount Royal[91] Canada 12.0 2,205
              31 Chigwell Row, Essex[92] United Kingdom 13.3 294
              32 Chigwell, Essex[93] United Kingdom 11.5 1,492
              33 Miami[94][not in citation given] United States 9.86 535,000
              34 Marseille[95] France 9 70,000
              35 Buenos Aires[96] Argentina 8.22 244,000
              36 Moor Park, Hertfordshire[97] United Kingdom 8.1 448
              37 Bricket Wood, Hertfordshire[98] United Kingdom 6.67 273
              38 Bury[99] United Kingdom 5.60 10,360
              39 Buckhurst Hill, Essex[100][101] United Kingdom 4.83 549
              40 Toronto[102] Canada 4.21 103,500

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_population_by_country

              1. Estovir is listing by percentage, not numbers. Here are the numbers:

                City Country Number
                New York City United States 1,100,000[1]
                Jerusalem Israel 546,100[2]
                Los Angeles United States 519,200[1]
                Tel Aviv-Yafo Israel 401,500[2]
                San Francisco Bay Area United States 391,550[1]
                Chicago United States 291,800[1]
                Paris France 277,000[3]
                Boston United States 248,000[1]
                Rishon LeZiyyon Israel 229,300[2]
                Petah Tiqwa Israel 220,900[2]
                Haifa Israel 217,6

                1. Anon, either your or Estovir’s figures are wrong. Estovir posted percentages of the world’s Jewish population, while you posted totals that do not break down to the same percentage. Estovir posted a link. You should, too, because now I’m curious. I don’t actually know which city has the most Jewish peopel in the world, I suppose if Israel’s cities are comparatively small, each city could have a total lower than a major metropolis.

                  1. Karen,
                    my first link provided the data you are seeking while Anon, as usual, ignored one data set and made up another without any sources, as you noted.

                    Here it is again

                    https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/largest-jewish-populated-metropolitan-areas-worldwide

                    Vital Statistics: Largest Jewish Populated Metropolitan Areas, Worldwide

                    Rank, Metro Area, Country, Jewish Population, % of World Jewry

                    1, Tel Aviv, Israel, 3,468,500, 23.9%

                    _____

                    Tel Aviv is a city, 2nd largest in Israel.

                    New York, the State, is ranked number 2 on the aforementioned link, which is consistent with Wiki. Additionally, Wiki also contradicts Anon but that should surprise no one

                    Incidentally, I always heard that Miami Beach had more Orthodox Jews than all of Israel, particularly Hassidic. But I heard that from non-practicing Jews kvetching about Hassidic and Orthodox Jews.

                    There are Jews and then there are Jews, just like there are Catholics and then there are Catholics

                  2. Karen, spin much? My statement was unequivocal and true. NYC has the world’s largest Jewish population.

                    1. Again, the 19 counties in Downstate New York and northern New Jersey have a Jewish population of about 1.9 million. The bloc of 50 densely settled municipalities in Israel’s Central and Tel Aviv districts has a Jewish population of about 2.4 million.

                    2. New York City United States 1,100,000[1]
                      Jerusalem Israel 546,100[2]
                      Los Angeles United States 519,200[1]
                      Tel Aviv-Yafo Israel 401,500[2]
                      San Francisco Bay Area United States 391,550[1]
                      Chicago United States 291,800[1]
                      Paris France 277,000[3]
                      Boston United States 248,000[1]
                      Rishon LeZiyyon Israel 229,300[2]
                      Petah Tiqwa Israel 220,900[2]
                      Haifa Israel 217,600[2]
                      Washington, D.C. United States 215,600[1]
                      Philadelphia United States 214,600[1]
                      Ashdod Israel 200,400[2]
                      Netanya Israel 196,300[2]

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_by_Jewish_population

                    3. JC says: May 5, 2019 at 11:06 AM

                      “You just can’t help lying.”

                      Karen S says: May 4, 2019 at 3:37 PM

                      “Anon, either your or Estovir’s figures are wrong.”

                      Anon has posted a link to the numbers he cited. Anon is not and was not lying.

                      The Number that Il Postino cited for the Jewish population of New York City United States was 1,540,000.

                      The number that Anon cited for the Jewish population of New York City United States was 1,100,000.

                      Il Postino Boy asserts that there are 440,000 more Jews in New York City than Anon asserts that there are.

                      Anon asserts that New York City has the world’s largest Jewish population. Il Postino must necessarily agree with Anon. And yet, Karen says that Anon might be wrong even while JC claims that Anon is lying.

                      Contributed by The L4D–That’s How Dumb It Gets–Project

                      (Still In Memory of P. Hill)

            2. Adolph Ochs was in fact a German Jew of the ‘Our Crowd’ variety. His great-great-grandson is not per halakha. Nor per the Nuremberg Laws. Of the executive editors the paper’s had over the last 25 years, only Jill Abramson (2011-14) was a Jew.

              Not that it matters, much. The people who run the paper are half-educated cosmopolitans who identify with their class in Manhattan and Cambridge and points abroad, not with the U.S. nor with Israel. Both Israel and the U.S. are run by nationalists they despise.

                  1. next Anon will post numbers made up in their head sans weblink or sources

                    Like NYT WAPO CNN et al

                    1. Says the guy who comes up with a % basis for trying to deny that NYC has the world’s largest Jewish population.

          2. Dershowitz has forfeited all credibility about anything. So sad an end to an otherwise brilliant career. He drank the Cool Aid.

  13. I chuckled at this one. With scant doubt, the youths in question had earned a little physical pain to take their mind off their emotional disorders. Still, a BB goes in the wrong place, it can do real damage.

    She’s lost her job and any future employer who Googles her name is going to see this. She won’t ever be hired by anyone who doesn’t have a vigorous sense of humor.

Leave a Reply