When The Left Invades Our Privacy - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 07-01-2006, 08:04 PM

WHEN THE LEFT INVADES OUR PRIVACY

Why publish maps and specific street names and photographs of the private (not anymore) homes where the Vice President and Defense Secretary and their families spend their vacations?

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/3...0michaels.html

Why?

Because blabbermouth Bill Keller feels like it, right? (Interesting timing, no?)

Because the "people" (you know: Code Pink, Fred Phelps, jihadis) have a "right to know," right?

Because neighbors are talking and because the Washington Post blabbed it already, right? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...090401391.html

And because al Qaeda already must have an inkling that Rumsfeld and Cheney live somewhere in the greater Washington, D.C. area, right? So what's the harm in handing them all the details, right?

I wonder how Pinch Sulzberger would react to citizen photographers trampling his driveway, snapping pics of his vacation home, and splashing them all over their blogs?

It's in the "public interest," right?

N.Y. Times Retaliates Against Cheney, Rumsfeld
Beware of travel feature stories posing as invitations to terror.

"The New York Times points cranks, radicals, al-Qaida operatives and would-be assassins to the summer homes of [V.P. Dick] Cheney and [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld" writes FrontPage Magazine's David Horowitz, who sees the June 30 Times feature article as an apparent retaliation for administration "criticism of the Times' disclosure of classified intelligence to America's enemies."

In the "Escapes" section of the June 30 edition, the N.Y. Times printed huge color photos of the vacation residences of Cheney and Rumsfeld, "identifying the small Maryland town where they live, showing their front driveways and, in Rumsfeld's case, actually pointing out the hidden security camera in case any hostile intruders should get careless," Horowitz writes.

Times Travel section writer Peter Kilborn even makes sure enemies of the two men will know such details as where Mrs. Rumsfeld shops in the eastern shore town of St. Michaels, Md. where the two administration officials have weekend retreats.

He even lets the curious know what street the Cheneys and Rumsfelds have to use to get to their own road.

It's all part of the war against President Bush, Horowitz charges.

"Make no mistake about it, there is a war going on in this country," Horowitz advises, noting that the aggressors in this war "are Democrats, liberals and leftists who began a scorched earth campaign against President Bush before the initiation of hostilities in Iraq."

One of the most prevalent weapons in this war, according to Horowitz, is the New York Times.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...423.shtml?s=ic

The NY Times points cranks, radicals, al-Qaeda operatives and would be assassins to the summer homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld
Friday, June 30, 2006 12:36 PM

In an apparent retaliation for criticism of its disclosure of classified intelligence to America's enemies, the New York Times June 30th edition has printed huge color photos of the vacation residences of Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, identifying the small Maryland town where they live, showing the front driveway and in Rumsfeld's case actually pointing out the hidden security camera in case any hostile intruders should get careless:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/06/3...0michaels.html

Make no mistake about it, there is a war going on in this country. The aggressors in this war are Democrats, liberals and leftists who began a scorched earth campaign against President Bush before the initiation of hostilities in Iraq. The initiators of this war were Al Gore and Jimmy Carter who attacked the president's attempt to rally the world against Saddam's defiance of international law in September 2002 just after his appeal to the UN General Assembly. Coming from national leaders of the opposition party these were attacks unprecedented in the history of post-Civil War American politics. Carter's perfidious decision to accept a Nobel Peace Prize designed to attack his own president followed shortly after.

The campaign began in earnest with Nancy Pelosi's attack on the liberation of Iraq as "too costly" on April 13, 2003, the day American troops pulled down Saddam's statue and was raised to the level of political sabotage of our troops in Iraq and America's war on terror when a Democratic chorus began hammering the commander-in-chief as a "liar" over the 16 words about Saddam's effort to purchase fissionable uranium in Niger. The campaign to sabotage America's war against the Islamo-fascist enemy has continued unabated through Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, Haditha and the two intelligence programs that the New York Times exposed. Its agenda is to force an American defeat in Iraq using the model of Vietnam ("Bring the troops home," while the battle is in progress). Let's hope the American people wise up and stop it in its tracks.

Here's a proposal for action:

http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/20...rger-live.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/blog/index.asp

Jolie Rouge · 07-01-2006, 08:16 PM

The Huffington Post's Swift Antics
By David Holman
Published 6/28/2006 12:09:17 AM

Some readers of HuffingtonPost.com have initiated a new wave of harassing phone calls to Swift Boat veterans who questioned John Kerry's military record in the 2004 campaign -- and the website's proprietors claimed ignorance of it for days, despite repeated complaints.

Last Saturday morning, HuffPost, Arianna Huffington's year-old online effort, linked to a story regarding the release of Navy personal information. By Saturday afternoon, two registered "trusted" HuffPost commenters posted the names and personal information of more than a dozen Swift Boat veterans. "SatanLivesinUSA" wrote at 2:15 p.m., June 24, "SwiftBoatVets who need some Black Ops done on them. I have some very good ideas I gleaned from 'CIA BOOK of DIRTY TRICKS' Don't get mad, get EVEN." Minutes later, at 2:19 p.m., "YvonneMoorhead" repeatedly pasted SatanLivesinUSA's comments on that page and on another Huffington Post post. Elsewhere, in February, YvonneMoorhead had posted, "F*** em, they died for the greater Isreali [sic] goal of stealing more land by having its proxy America invade Iraq and next Iran. They are not called Masters of Deceit for nothing."

Aside from one or two complaints, fellow commenters did not object to the posting of the information or the threats.

Some of these men reported receiving harassing and threatening phone calls over the weekend. At 2:30 a.m., Saturday, June 24, Adrian Lonsdale said he received a call from an apparently drunk man claiming to be another veteran, Van Odell. The caller said, "Our lies are all over the Internet. We are in deep ****."

After the contact information was posted on the Huffington Post, the harassing calls increased in frequency. Saturday afternoon Lonsdale received another call, "congratulating" him for "ruining our country." In the early hours of Sunday morning, Van Odell received three calls, he told TAS, at 1:47 a.m., 1:48, and 1:50. A man calmly told him, "I want to know why you lied about John Kerry... Traitors must die. We will get you. You can't get away with this." Then his call descended into cursing, at which point Odell said he hung up on him. Odell received another round of calls around 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon. He has turned his phone off so that his six-year-old grandson could not pick up the calls.

Though the men have contacted their local law enforcement officials, they had difficulty addressing the harassment through the Huffington Post. They told TAS that they repeatedly emailed HuffPost at info@huffingtonpost.com, beginning Sunday night. Odell's son said that he and co-workers flagged the comments as "abusive."

The comments remained posted on the pages until Tuesday afternoon, when TAS contacted Katharine Zaleski, HuffPost news editor, via an unlisted telephone number. HuffPost promptly removed the comments. (They can be seen here http://www.spectator.org/finalhuff.pfd -- telephone numbers and street addresses have been blocked out by TAS.) Asked about procedures to identify and remove threatening comments, Zaleski issued a statement, "Thank you for telling us. We were not aware since we receive over up to 10,000 comments a day. We are erasing them." She added that the offending commenters will be banned.

This incident is a repeat of similar tactics employed against members of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 election. The same list of names and contact information remains posted on the blog "Democratic Veteran." http://www.usndemvet.com/cgi-bin/mt/...?entry_id=2000 And since John Kerry recently indicated that he intends to press the case for his military records http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AC0894DE404482 and against the Swift Boat veterans ahead of the 2008 election, perhaps this is what the Swift Boat veterans can look forward to. Van Odell hopes not. "It happened before during the election," he said yesterday. "I was hoping everyone would realize the election was over. Evidently not."

David Holman is a reporter for The American Spectator.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10020

Jolie Rouge · 07-01-2006, 08:27 PM

. RedState follows up on the Left's selective outrage....

Swift Boat Veterans Attacked & Threatened
By: RS Politics

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/28/74650/1386

Remember all the faux outrage over Michelle Malkin daring to post a press release, in full, that contained contact information of anti-solider students (yeah, they're anti-war, but they hate the troops too)?

Let's first remember that the students released their own information and Michelle just did not redact what the students themselves published. Now consider what the lefties have done.

The other day, the Navy discovered that information pertaining to a number of veterans was inappropriately and without authorization being displayed on a website. According to Dave Holman, writing at the American Spectator, ( see above post )

Dave writes that although the veterans began complaining to the HufPo on Saturday, Arianna and her minion kept the personal information on the HufPo until Tuesday with the Spectator got involved and contacted HufPo.

I guess the right isn't allowed to display public information, but the left is allowed to use confidential information inappropriately obtained to harass military veterans they disagree with -- oh and students should apparently be allowed to threaten and harass soldiers on a whim.

http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/6/28/74650/1386

tngirl · 07-01-2006, 11:12 PM

I don't get it Jolie

, what is wrong with what they are doing? They can't do any wrong and everything is justifiable. It would only be wrong if a conservative was to do something like this

Jolie Rouge · 07-02-2006, 12:37 AM

Here's a proposal for action:

http://antiprotester.blogspot.com/2...erger-live.html

Where Does Pinch Sulzberger Live?

David Horowitz reports that the NY Times, in apparent retaliation for the backlash over its decision to publish U.S. security secrets, has published details of Donald Rumsfeld's and Dick Cheney's summer homes including, (in Rumsfeld's case), the location of security cameras on the property.

By repeatedly exposing details of programs essential to fighting al Qaeda, the New York Times endangers all Americans. It has now directly endangered the lives of Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney.

I issue a call to the blogosphere to begin finding and publicly listing the addresses of all New York Times reporters and editors. Posting pictures of their residences, along with details of any security measures in place to protect the properties and their owners (such as location of security cameras and on-site security details) should also be published.

Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors:

Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr.
Bill Keller
Eric Lichtblau
James Risen

I announce this program in the public interest.

--------------

update:7/01/2006 4:56 PM: In the public interest, I've just published an article on Linda J. Spillers, who photographed Donald Rumsfeld's vacation home for the NY Times article. Should you have any questions for her, Linda's contact information is in the article.

Jolie Rouge · 07-08-2006, 12:30 AM

NEWSFLASH: I DIDN'T KILL DENICE DENTON
By Michelle Malkin · July 06, 2006 02:01 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/

Last night, Glenn Reynolds linked to this Hit and Run post by David Weigel, http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006...r.shtml#014545 who crassly attempts to connect my criticism of UC Santa Cruz's anti-military thugs with the recent suicide of the school's deeply troubled president, Denice Denton.

Weigel accuses me of "smearing" Denton because I simply asked people to take a stand and quoted from a San Francisco Chronicle article reporting that the capitulationist administration knew about the anti-military activists' plans weeks in advance and had hoped that they would be rained out. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...AG3KI7INT1.DTL

Weigel accuses me of throwing around charges of "treason" and "traitors," neither of which I used in any of my blog posts on the anti-recruiting brigade at Santa Cruz. "Seditious," yes. Treasonous, no. Not that it seems to make a difference to Weigel in his quest to label me a reckless labeler. Treason. Sedition. Whatever. Right, Weigel?

And take a look at that shameless last paragraph:

Quote:

"While no one is suggesting that her readers pushed Denton over the edge..."

Of course, that is exactly what is being suggested

Quote:

"...Malkin has said nothing about the chancellor since her suicide. It might become her to apologize for smearing an academic, and directing people to direct their outrage to her office, in what were the final troubled months of her life."

Weigel attacks me for not saying anything about Denton's suicide. Crikey. If I had said anything, his ilk would have jumped all over me for not having the compassion to keep quiet about her various scandals and corruptocrat ways and let her loved ones mourn in peace.

Finally, Weigel wants me to "apologize" for supplying readers with the public office phone number and contact info of a prominent and outspoken public official.

So much for free markets, free minds, and free speech. Are we to withhold criticism now of all public figures because they might be going through "troubled" times and any call for accountability might send them over the edge?

What's so libertarian about that?