I long have criticized the bias of the NY Times, and mocked its business death spiral. My posts Nude Swiss Hikers Rescue NY Times and NY Times New Business Strategy: DEATH mocked the sensationalist trend on The Times’ website. I was the first (as far as I know) to suggest The Times convert to non-profit status. I have attacked the spineless hypocrisy of columnists such as Paul Krugman and David Brooks, and taken The Times to task for its attacks on Eric Cantor and Sarah Palin, photo bias about Israel, despicable characterization of the immigration issue, and The “Military Recruiting Goals” Media Lie. And I’ve only been blogging six months!

Now The Times is giving it back to me, describing me as “seething” over the report by the Department of Homeland Security defining a broad range of citizens as “extremist” for doing nothing more than voicing their opinions on issues and seeking to influence government, both of which activities are protected by the 1st Amendment.

Here is The Times’ description of me followed by The Times’ quotation of my post on the issue. You decide whether The Times is being honest in its characterization of my post:

William A. Jacobson of Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion is seething over the document’s apparent anti-Federalism:

This definition is so broad as to include anyone who seeks to preserve the foundation of our federal-state constitutional distinction, under the 10th Amendment (”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”), because such a person could be deemed to “reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” So Texas governor Rick Perry, who has come out in support of preserving the constitutional integrity of Texas now should be on the DHS’ extremist and radical watch-list.

Similarly, the reference to “abortion or immigration” is purely political. Why pick those two subjects? If someone is planning violence, that is one thing. But vocalizing one’s view on a subject and seeking to influence the government are protected by the 1st Amendment (”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”).

Wow, quoting the 1st and 10th Amendments to the Constitution sure is a threat to the republic from this extremist. I must be mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore.

Let’s see who else The Times has described over the years as “seething”:

I could go on and on with examples, but I hope you get the point. The NY Times overuses the word. And in my case, used the word to express political disapproval in line with the theme of the article: “The reaction on the right was swift and scornful.”

Nothing in the article says anything about the seething liberal netroots who called the Tea Partiers every name in the book and used vulgar sexual innuendo. No, the article characterizes Matthew Yglesias as describing DHS as “sensible” and “the right as hypocritical.” Why wasn’t Yglesias “seething”?

I am staying the course on my anti-NY Times Jihad (whoops, can’t use that word), even if my head explodes (no, that’s not a threat) from my seething anger.
Related Posts: Andrew Sullivan Still Silent On Obama-Chavez LoveFest and Obama Throws Venezuelans Under The Bus

UPDATE: Doug Ross reveals the source of all this seething in His Majesty’s Secret Report. And Smitty at The Other McCain hearts my selfless determination.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook