"(Reagan's) brand of radical conservatism had a counterpart in Britain under Margaret Thatcher, but it achieved little success elsewhere (overseas)."

Radical conservatism? Ronald Reagan was a Barry Goldwater clone? According to R.W. Apple, the Times associate editor who wrote the piece, he was indeed. And so another example of how The New York Times, itself, has become radicalized is in the books.

Somewhere along the line, the Times got out of the news business and into the nation-building business. Its primary intent is no longer to provide objective information and fair-minded analysis to its readers, but to convince them to support a brave new world in the USA. The power of The New York Times is being used to promote the formation of a new America, a bright, shining progressive city on a hill of steep government entitlements.

But why should you care what an individual newspaper does? With a circulation of a million and a half, most Americans don't read The New York Times. True enough, but consider this. Every morning, the powerful barons and anchor people who run the network TV news operations read the Times first thing. They often take editorial direction from the paper, sometimes duplicating story selection and even point-of-view. All news radio does the same thing, and the Times' wire goes out to thousands of newspapers across the country and around the world. This is one extremely powerful outfit.

The transformation of The New York Times from news source to ideological journal has taken years. The absurdity of labeling Ronald Reagan a far-right radical is just the latest in a long line of over-the-top "reportage." Two further recent examples:

• The New York Times ran 43 front page stories in 47 days on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. By contrast, the Chicago Tribune, certainly no conservative bastion, posted 27 front page stories on the situation. There is no question the Times is using the scandal to hammer the Bush administration, as often its front page expositions contain little new information. But the steady drip of scandal undermines the President's credibility and makes his administration look brutal and inept.
• Over the past few months, The New York Times has run eleven stories on the start-up liberal radio network which is now having trouble paying its bills and is heard on less than 20 stations. The last time the Times tried to prop up this propaganda operation, its correspondent opined the network had a "significant" audience. That is flat out untrue.

In the world of the Times, Americans like Ronald Reagan who want a smaller federal government are radicals--mean people who want to hurt minorities. Those who believe symbols of Judeo-Christian philosophy should be freely exhibited in public are "fundamentalists." If you oppose abortion you are "anti-woman." If you're against gay marriage, you are, quite possibly, homophobic. The number of personal attacks in the Times has increased dramatically over the past few years, and if you don't believe me, just ask Mel Gibson.

As the Blues Brothers once remarked, "We're on a mission from God." The Times, of course, would remove God from that quotation. The paper is definitely on a mission, and the gloves are off. Arthur Sulzberger and his tribe want a secular nation with few judgments on personal behavior, income redistribution through taxation of the affluent, and a foreign policy that seeks consensus at almost all costs.

That's the sign of the Times today. And God (sorry) help you if you're standing in its way.