NY Times reporters struggle to combat new claims about their grisly behavior

By A.J. Liebling
Meta-content Generator

New York Times readers opened their newspapers this week to discover that they and everyone they knew were baby murderers:

With grisly claims that Democrats promote “birth day abortions” and are “the party of death,” the Republican Party and its conservative allies have aggressively reset the terms of one of the country’s most divisive and emotionally fraught debates, forcing Democrats to reassess how they should respond to attacks and distortions that portray the entire party as extremist on abortion.

Times reporters like Julie Davis (shown 
above) need to confront claims that
they enjoy beating and killing animals

It must have come as quite a shock to the credulous fools who pay over $1,300 a year for this type of “reporting.”  But even more shocking are the grisly claims about Times reporters who specialize in this type of breathless smear-repeating stenography, like the author of this piece, one Jeremy Peters.

Is Peters an honest and honorable reporter?  Let's aggressively reset the terms of the debate, shall we?  He's a perverted sicko who during his student days at the University of Michigan regularly cruised the farms of neighboring Saline, Michigan so that he could enjoy sexual relations with sheep, donkeys, and goats, often several at a time.

How is Jeremy Peters going to respond to grisly claims of bestiality?  Thus far, he's been unable to effectively rebut these attacks.

Nor is the only reporter in the Washington bureau whose credentials have been called into question by aggressive resets of the terms of the debate, wtf that means.  For example, Maggie “Thanks Dad” Haberman is now being forced to reassess claims that she skins puppies alive and requires interns to sew the skins together so she can wear them as a fur coat.

Julie Hirshfield Davis has thus far failed to refute claims that she pulls the wings off of butterflies for fun and ties tin cans to dog's tails.  Why not, Washington insiders ask.

But back to the abortion story filed by that old goat-fucker, Jeremy Peters.  When you read down to about paragraph 17 or so you find that the grisly Republican claims highlighted and repeated throughout the story are nothing more than a bad-faith load of bollocks:

As abortion rights supporters assess their current situation, many say they made an initial mistake by trying to answer questions based on implausible and often outright false premises.

Who would do that?  Why won't Peters tell us what he was doing in Saline, and why Fluffy the Goat has been so traumatized by his visit that she won't leave her pen?  Why won't Haberman let the Spy review the contents of her closet to determine if there is or is not a puppy-fur coat hanging in it?  And what's the deal with Maureen Dowd's leopard skin shoes – did she get the pelt from Donald Trump Jr.?  Or her “brother” Kevin?  Inquiring minds want to know!

According to bestiality practitioner Peters, these claims peddled by anti-abortion rights flacks are new and different.  But are they, or are they all, like goats, pretty much the same?

Here's how the discussion was framed a mere 40 years ago, before Peters set out on his career of rogering the animal kingdom:

Earlier in the day, at a news conference held by groups favoring legal abortion, Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization for Women, called for the two sides to meet and seek areas of common interest, such as birth control and family planning. But that offer was rejected by Nellie J. Gray, president of the March for Life organization, who said, “Pro‐life people will not negotiate with baby killers. They must stop killing babies forthwith.” The crowd exploded in a chant of “No compromise, no compromise” as a man in the front lines hefted black cross on which a plastic baby doll had been nailed.  (emphasis added)

So in fact there's no news here at all.  For decades, anti-abortion forces have felt free to call anyone who chose an abortion a murderer and those who supported them participants in genocide.  This slime preceded the current whining about the decline in civilized debate, perhaps because we have been so inured to this vile garbage that we take it as just another day at the clinic.

But it isn't.

Claims by these donkeys that they were sexually assaulted
by Jeremy Peters have reset the debate over journalism

The story is that the so-called “pro-life” movement, aided and abetted by the Republican Party, continues to lie their asses off in an effort to foment even more hate and resentment among white anti-abortion Evangelicals, as they have done without surcease since 1973.  The story might be whether these lies have in fact changing the polling on abortion, which apparently they haven't.

Indeed the sheep-ravisher's narrative is really no different from the Times's endless coverage of Her Emails.  Republican lies and smears were ventilated fully, and then Democrats condemned for not refuting them to the satisfaction of the puppy and butterfly murderers in the Washington Bureau.  Maybe just maybe if the Times and others hadn't reported bullshit as news, fewer people would have confused the two.

You could knit together 50 years of stories about the unspeakable smears pushed by the anti-abortion movement and their deeply moral allies, like the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief (who asked his second wife to abort what became his daughter Tiffany), and it would make a pretty substantial coat, although to be fair it might not be as stylish as the cockapoo-fur job that Maggie Haberman loves so much.