Follow by Email

Saturday, December 21, 2013

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Obama’s Disappointing Response": "Disappointing"? How About "Outrageous"?

In a new editorial entitled "Mr. Obama’s Disappointing Response" (, The New York Times responds to Obama's decision to ignore the recommendations of his own panel on government surveillance:

"By the time President Obama gave his news conference on Friday, there was really only one course to take on surveillance policy from an ethical, moral, constitutional and even political point of view. And that was to embrace the recommendations of his handpicked panel on government spying — and bills pending in Congress — to end the obvious excesses. He could have started by suspending the constitutionally questionable (and evidently pointless) collection of data on every phone call and email that Americans make.

He did not do any of that."

Hmm, the abnegation of fundamental Constitutional rights of American citizens by a would-be Constitutional lawyer is merely "disappointing"?

How about "outrageous"?

Can you only begin to imagine the response of The Times if Bush had behaved in this fashion? Bush would have been skinned alive by The Times and the rest of America's liberal media.

However, unlike Barbara Walters (see:, the editorial board of The New York Times has yet to recognize that Obama is a false messiah.

1 comment:

  1. Who are "we," Barbara? Unlike you, I knew in early 2007 when, highly irritated, I told Frank Rich, the chief Obama promoter at the NYT (comment in one of the discussion), to get lost informing him, the pompous bozo, that messianic movements tend to end tragically.
    Of course, I don't have your (and his) arrogance and I am highly educated.