Big Dogs House

Funny How The Right To Know Has Changed Among The Left

Dec 31, 2009 Political

Back when George Bush was president the al-Qaeda wing of the media, The New York Times, would routinely divulge our nation’s secrets. Sometimes the paper would sit on a story for a while and when they finally released it that would claim that they had held onto it because of pressure from the White House but that the public interest was best served by releasing the info. You had such a right to know that some Democrats leaked info as well…

The information released involved methods we used to track terrorists, the fact that we intercepted their phone calls and any number of other items dealing with our security. If it was a national security secret then it was a sure bet the NYT would release it.

Recently a terrorist made his way on an airplane and tried to blow it up. The Transportation Security Administration sent out a memo about increased security and that memo was not supposed to be released to the public. Evidently, several bloggers got hold of it and published it.

Were they honored as serving the public’s interest? Were they deemed to have the best interest of the country at heart? Were they held up in liberal worship as the NYT is?

No, they were served subpoenas and told that they had to divulge who gave them the information. The government used its ham handed techniques of threatening the livelihood of the people if they did not cooperate and laptop computers were taken. While the terrorist who tried to blow up the plane has received the best medical care in the world and was read his Miranda Rights two people who broke no laws are being harassed by the government.

I can understand the TSA being a little touchy because this is the second time in a month that confidential information belonging to them has wound up on the web. They have a leak and it is up to them to find it.

I have no problem with the government trying to keep its secrets secret but the review should involve looking at the people who work for the agency. Look at the emails and see who sent it out and fire that person.

If government is this hell bent on pursuing leaks then I expect to see subpoenas hit the NYT next time there is a leak.

Of course that leak won’t be until there is a Republican in the White House…

Source:
Yahoo News

Share on Facebook

Tags: harassment, leaked info, new york times, subpoena, tsa

128 Years Of Global Warming Polar Melting Gloom And Doom

Dec 17, 2009 Political

While the Global Warming summit at Copenhagen teeters on the edge of being a farce American Thinker has published an article showing that the polar ice cap melting issue has been a farce for 128 years.

The American Thinker has headlines from the New York Times that show the paper has been hyping the melting polar caps for 128 years. It seems to me that the polar caps are still there even though they have been melting and we have been on the verge of losing them for over a century.

It also seems that this hype is no different than what we are hearing now.

Be sure to visit the website and read all the headlines dealing with this issue. See if the headlines don’t look like they could be in the paper today…

Share on Facebook

Tags: global warming, new york times, polar ice caps

New York Times Keeps Mum For Its Own

Jun 23, 2009 Political

David Rohde, a reporter for the New York Times, was captured in Afghanistan seven months ago and a few days ago he escaped and is on his way to safety. I am happy he escaped and hope he is none the worse for wear.

The story of his capture was not made public by the NYT. Bill Keller decided that it would put him in danger if the story was published so the took the “agonizing” decision to keep it under wraps.

Deciding not to report initially on reporter David Rohde’s capture by the Taliban for seven months was “an agonizing position that we revisited over and over again,” New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said Sunday.

“All along, we were told by people that probably the wisest course for David’s safety was to keep it quiet,” Keller said in an interview on CNN. My Way News

This is the same New York Times that disclosed one secret government plan after another even after being asked not to so that our troops would not be placed in further danger. The NYT only held one story and did not do that for very long. The paper decided that it was in the public’s interest to know about the secret programs.

When it came to one of their own, the paper decided to keep the story quiet so as not to endanger the employee.

Where was the public’s interest?

This is further proof that the NYT is an anti American paper. They took great pride in hurting America when George Bush was trying to protect us even though they were told it could place our troops in further danger.

This should demonstrate the bias of the NYT as well as their hatred of our troops.

Share on Facebook

Tags: afghanistan, david rohde, new york times, secrets, treason, troops

Palin Was Punked; New York Times Was Flat Out Fooled

Dec 22, 2008 Political

When Sarah Palin was the victim of a prank phone call from a few Canadian comedians the liberals loved to make fun of her. She was called an airhead and made fun of all around. Much to her credit, she laughed it off. She is not the first famous person to be fooled by these pranksters and she will certainly not be the last.

When this happened the New York Times political blog ran the story and they were pretty fair about it. They reported it and indicated that several other celebrities had been the victims of this radio station. The comment section however, was full of missives by people who swore that this confirmed she was stupid. The reality is that Sarah Palin is intelligent and a genuine person who cares about her country and sticks to her values.

The stupid people are the Obama supporters who were unable to answer questions after the election. There are still an amazing number of people who think Palin said she could see Russia from her house (Tina Fey said that on SNL). These same people could not identify Obama as the person who said his policies on coal would ruin that industry. On the bottom of my sidebar is a list of videos. Click on the one labeled Obama Supporters and watch the people who think Palin is an airhead. The fact that these people are allowed out in public without supervision (much less allowed to vote) is scary. As an added bonus, click on the one labeled Lib Morons and listen to the Obama followers support McCain’s positions. Then tell me that an informed electorate voted for Obama.

Well, it looks like the New York Times is full of airheads, if we apply the same logic to them that was applied to Palin. The Times printed a letter that was supposed to be from the Mayor of Paris. The letter from Mayor Bertrand Delanoe was critical of Caroline Kennedy and the idea that she wanted to be a Senator. The problem is, the letter was a fake. The Times failed to verify the authenticity of the letter before publishing it.

Palin was unable to verify a phone call but an entire news organization was unable to verify a letter. She was labeled an airhead and the Times printed an apology.

It should surprise no one that the Times was lax. The paper has printed many articles that were in error and they are often guilty of ignoring the truth in order to advance a political agenda.

I will take Sarah Palin over any of the ever dwindling pool of workers from the NYT any day. Palin is intelligent, ethical and principled, three things that one cannot say about anyone at the Times.

Palin will be back on the national scene and when she reappears things will be a little different. After four years of the inexperienced hack that the fools in America elected, people will begin to see the real value of Palin and her experience.

President Palin. That sounds nice and we can rest assured that there are no radical preachers, unrepentant terrorists or scuzzy money launderers in her past.

She also has a valid birth certificate.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Share on Facebook

Tags: airhead, fools, new york times, Obama, pranks, sarah palin

Sign of the Times, Drudge Unburies the News

Jul 21, 2008 Political

Last week Barack Obama had a piece published in the terrorist daily brief known as the New York Times. Senator John McCain sent the NYT his response to the Obama piece and it was promptly rejected by the NYT Editorial Board. In an email exchange, David Shipley (who served in the Clinton Administration), told Michael Goldfarb of McCain’s campaign, that they would like to work with the Senator to get the piece published but had to reject it at this time. Then, a few suggestions were offered to make it more Times friendly:

Dear Mr. Goldfarb,

Thank you for sending me Senator McCain’s essay.

I’d be very eager to publish the senator on the Op-Ed page.

However, I’m not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written. I’d be pleased, though, to look at another draft. Let me suggest an approach.

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out
how it meshes with his Iraq plan.

I am going to be out of the office next week. If you decide to re-work the draft, please be in touch with Mary Duenwald, the Op-Ed deputy. …

Again, thank you for taking the time to send me the Senator’s draft. I really hope we can find a way to bring this to a happy resolution.

Sincerely,

David Shipley NYT

Assuming Shipley really wants to publish something from McCain rather than bury his article (and without Drudge this might have been buried forever) we need to look at what he expects. Shipley wants McCain to refine his piece so that it mirrors Obama’s. One might think he meant that it should follow the same format and he certainly outlined it that way by indicating that it should explain how McCain defines victory, troop levels, and timetables for measuring success. That might be a reasonable request in the liberal world.

The problem is, it is more likely that Shipley really wants McCain to mirror Obama’s plan for defeat. Nowhere in Obama’s piece did the young Senator define victory. Nowhere did he discuss troop levels and nowhere did he describe a timetable for success. Obama states he will remove all of our troops (leaving a small contingent) within 16 months. Let me reiterate, OBAMA DID NOT DISCUSS WHAT VICTORY WOULD BE. He is vested in defeat and this is why the NYT had no problem publishing his article. Obama’s piece discussed his plan in vague terms and left it open to revision depending on the situation on the ground.

Obama says that he would redeploy our troops and that he would be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. This is the same mantra he has been saying for over a year. In all reality, most of the stuff in his piece is from his stump speeches. The NYT might be accurate that the piece appeared before a particular Obama speech but the content has been part of his speeches for quite some time. Therefore, contrary to Shipley’s claims, the Obama piece did not offer new information.

The 16 month withdraw and leaving troops behind are not new plans. The only thing that is recent is that Obama would now like to have a surge in Afghanistan. He wants to put more troops in Afghanistan despite his objections to doing that in Iraq and despite his assertions that the surge has not worked. He gave credit to the troops but he was quick to point out that Iraq’s government has not held up its end of the bargain. Senator Obama is criticizing the Iraqi government for being slow when our own government has been non existent this year (and for many years). Nothing substantive has been accomplished by our do absolutely nothing Congress and we are not fighting a war on our soil.

The New York Times has demonstrated its liberal bias just as the major broadcast media did when it decided to follow Obama all over the world. When McCain made trips to the war zones, did all the anchors follow him around? It is obvious that the Times does not want to print McCain’s piece because it runs contrary to their opinions and it paints Obama in a poor light because it points out that Obama has never mentioned victory. The reality is that the Times will print any liberal tripe sent to it by left wing celebrities and Democrats in Congress. This is their definition of unbiased reporting. The amazing thing is that liberals who mock Fox for its Fair and Balanced slogan look at the Times as acting fairly.

Is it any wonder that the Times’ circulation is down and that the once great paper is being run into the ground? While I won’t lose any sleep if they go belly up, a lot of people will be out of jobs if they do not right that ship. The last thing we need is one more thing for them to blame on George Bush.

In any event, the McCain Op-Ed was printed in full on Drudge. At least we can count on Drudge to publish things.

Share on Facebook

Tags: drudge, liberal bias, McCain, new york times, Obama