NY Times will change their standards so a Tom Cotton-like op-ed never gets published

5

The NY Times published an opinion piece by Tom Cotton that riled up their leftist readers. As a result,  they are issuing mea culpas and plan to never let a conservative get to use their platform again.

They said the effort by Senator Tom Cotton was an op-ed that did not meet our standards.”  They promised “changes” to keep opposing opinions from slipping through.

Tom Cotton responded, In the face of the woke mob of woke kids that are in their newsroom, they tucked tail, and they ran.

Erick Erickson also responded, “The bedwetters at the New York Times can’t handle a United States Senator expressing an opinion shared by 58% of the nation.

Erickson referenced the results of a left-wing Morning Consult poll that came up with 58% saying we should bring in the military. The poll isn’t particularly friendly to the right and weighs Democrats heavily.

Seth Mandel, DC Examiner,  writes, “How could this possibly be real, cmon. They’re… actually reducing the number of opposing opinions they’ll run because the journalists they employ complained about hearing opposing opinions? You might never convince me this is real.

Jerry Dunleavy at DC Examiner wrote, “An op-ed from a U.S. senator did not meet the editorial standards of the @nytimes, but op-eds by Vladimir Putin, Nicolas Maduro, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and the Taliban did.”

The NY Times bows to the mob every time. They are far-left and no other opinion will be tolerated.

THIS IS THE PIECE, YOU DECIDE

Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops

The nation must restore order. The military stands ready.

By

Mr. Cotton, a Republican, is a United States senator from Arkansas.

[Our editorial page editor James Bennet expanded on the decision to publish this Op-Ed in his newsletter today.]***

This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s.

New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by while Midtown Manhattan descended into lawlessness. Bands of looters roved the streets, smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some even drove exotic cars; the riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements.

Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence. In New York State, rioters ran over officers with cars on at least three occasions. In Las Vegas, an officer is in “grave” condition after being shot in the head by a rioter. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot as they attempted to disperse a mob throwing bricks and dumping gasoline; in a separate incident, a 77-year-old retired police captain was shot to death as he tried to stop looters from ransacking a pawnshop. This is “somebody’s granddaddy,” a bystander screamed at the scene.

Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.

But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.

These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.

One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.

The pace of looting and disorder may fluctuate from night to night, but it’s past time to support local law enforcement with federal authority. Some governors have mobilized the National Guard, yet others refuse, and in some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard combined. In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military “or any other means” in “cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.”

This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to “protect each of them from domestic violence.” Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder. Nor does it violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which constrains the military’s role in law enforcement but expressly excepts statutes such as the Insurrection Act.

For instance, during the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson called out the military to disperse mobs that prevented school desegregation or threatened innocent lives and property. This happened in my own state. Gov. Orval Faubus, a racist Democrat, mobilized our National Guard in 1957 to obstruct desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower federalized the Guard and called in the 101st Airborne in response. The failure to do so, he said, “would be tantamount to acquiescence in anarchy.”

More recently, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Army’s Seventh Infantry and 1,500 Marines to protect Los Angeles during race riots in 1992. He acknowledged his disgust at Rodney King’s treatment — “what I saw made me sick” — but he knew deadly rioting would only multiply the victims, of all races and from all walks of life.

Not surprisingly, public opinion is on the side of law enforcement and law and order, not insurrectionists. According to a recent poll, 58 percent of registered voters, including nearly half of Democrats and 37 percent of African-Americans, would support cities’ calling in the military to “address protests and demonstrations” that are in “response to the death of George Floyd.” That opinion may not appear often in chic salons, but widespread support for it is fact nonetheless.

The American people aren’t blind to injustices in our society, but they know that the most basic responsibility of government is to maintain public order and safety. In normal times, local law enforcement can uphold public order. But in rare moments, like ours today, more is needed, even if many politicians prefer to wring their hands while the country burns.

Tom Cotton (@sentomcotton) is a Republican senator from Arkansas

*** THE EXPANSION IS AN ARTICLE EXPLAINING THEY DISAGREE BUT WANTED TO PUT IT UP TO OPEN UP DEBATE.

PowerInbox

5 COMMENTS

  1. Obviously, a viciously racist Cotton op-ed. Glad the NY Times remains the guardian of sensible, civilized, morally superior and clear-headed “liberal thinking”. The oxymoron wasn’t intended.

  2. Is the slimes made with the best biodegradable materials?
    Just wondering in case there is another shortage of toilet paper.

  3. The NYT is a mouthpiece of the Liberal Supremacists. It is of Liberals, by Liberals, and for Liberals. The staff are single minded drones who hold such flimsy and illogical ideals, that the op ed of a single Republican can destroy them in a minute. They are deathly afraid people might be exposed to the truth and blow their little fantasies apart.

  4. The Times can’t even give their paper away. Soros will
    probably step in and financially save them just so they can keep churning out the lies.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.