George Zimmerman's Brother Backpedals After WND Interview Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily's Michael Thompson seemed to have a nice scoop on his hands when he scored an interview with the brother of George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, over a racially charged image he tweeted:
The older brother of George Zimmerman, the man accused of killing Trayvon Martin, says a controversial Twitter posting comparing Martin with an alleged baby killer was his attempt to correct the establishment media’s false portrayal of the Florida teen in the racially charged case.
Robert Zimmerman, who spoke with WND in an exclusive interview, ignited a firestorm of debate on the Internet when he juxtaposed a Facebook photo of the 17-year-old Martin flipping off the camera alongside a Facebook photo of alleged killer DeMarquise Elkins, also 17, doing the same.
Robert Zimmerman argues that the Facebook photo was Martin’s “digital footprint,” the “way he wanted to be portrayed.”
“He knew he was doing when he took that picture and posted it to social media,” Zimmerman said.
“I did something on social media, and now I’m in trouble. That’s fair game. But look what Trayvon Martin had posted – an image that the media actively hid. Why isn’t that fair game? That was his self-portrayal, which is the most ethical way to portray him,” said Zimmerman.
“The way he is portrayed by attorneys and media strategists is the way we are introduced to him – a picture of Trayvon Martin skiing when he is in the eighth grade is not the person [my brother] encountered in February 2012,” he said.
“More than a year after the incident, the media still uses flattering images of Trayvon Martin as the person who George Zimmerman encountered. We thought the media would do its job, and that Travyon Martin 2.0 would emerge.”
If Robert Zimmerman was unrepentant in his WND interview, he was much less so a few hours after Thompson's article was posted, when he appeared on CNN:
Speaking on CNN's Piers Morgan Live on Wednesday night, he apologized for the messages, saying they weren't the "right thing to do."
"I realize those were controversial and offensive and I did publicly apologize for them," he said. "I'm a human being. I'm being upfront about what I did. I made a mistake ... Unfortunately (it) may not have helped George."
CNN added that George Zimmerman's lawyer has furiously been trying to distance his client from Robert:
Attorney Mark O'Mara told CNN's "Starting Point" Thursday morning that Robert Zimmerman doesn't represent his brother or his defense.
"Having said that, I'm not sure where (Robert's) heart was, but I've always said for the past year that we have to have a conversation about race, and the Zimmerman case has brought it to the forefront, particularly the way young black males are treated in the system," O'Mara said. "These type of tweets ... were insensitive to that, and quite honestly are the opposite of what I hope the conversation would be to try and figure out what's wrong with the system and maybe a good way to fix it."
O'Mara said he worries about how Robert Zimmerman's tweets will affect George's case.
"Everything that happens in this case is, if not overblown, hyper-focused upon, so that everything that George says or does is important," O'Mara said "... And certainly when a family member of my client says something that comes across as totally insensitive -- if not much, much worse -- (it) has an effect, and now we have to deal with it."
Robert Zimmerman did a nice job of playing into WND's race-baitingefforts to portray every black person as a mob-prone thug, only to change his tune in a TV appearance. Will WND report his flip-flop?
AIM Tries to Spin Away Bachmann's Falsehoods Topic: Accuracy in Media
Right-wingers like the employees of Accuracy in Media love Rep. Michele Bachmann, and they don't like it when she's held accountable for what she said. Thus, we have a March 22 AIM column by Roger Aronoff desperately trying to spin away Bachmann's falsehoods in her CPAC speech.
Aronoff begins by channeling what Bachmann said to CNN's Dana Bash after Bash pursued a briskly walking Bachmann to confront her with her falsehood about the White House having a dog walker:
In a clear case of the media’s double standard, CNN has been chasing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann around regarding her CPAC comments on the President’s lavish lifestyle. This, when the majority of her speech focused elsewhere: on Benghazi, the federal debt, medical innovations, and cyber attacks.
Aronoff doesn't explain Bachmann should get a pass for making a false statement because it wasn't the main focus of her speech.
Aronoff goes on to complain that the Washington Post's four-Pinocchio takedown of Bachmann's claim didn't quote Bachmann conceding that the president and his family "deserve the best security and the very best protection that we can get them." That's because it's irrelevant to Bachmann's false claim -- including it doesn't make her claims less false.
Aronoff is further annoyed that both the Post and CNN's Anderson Cooper dismissed a book Bachmann's office cited as a source for her claims because "it is self-published and without sources." Isn't that enough reason to dismiss it? Apparently not for Aronoff.
Aronoff then tried to parse Bachmann's claim about the dog walker, insisting that "Bachmann didn’t say 'he has a dog walker'" but, rather, "We are also the ones who are paying for someone to walk the President’s dog," which is true because the White House groundskeeper also walks the dog: "In other words, she never asserted that someone had been hired for this purpose, but that they were paid to do it." It's a distinction without a difference -- if you're paying someone to perform a job, doesn't that mean you've hired them? Bachmann's statement can easily be interpreted as describing a White House position consisting solely of walking the dog.
That's the kind of ideology-before-facts approach that makes AIM a lousy media watchdog.
WND's Klein Gets Self-Congratulatory, Twists the Truth Topic: WorldNetDaily
Note to WorldNetDaily: If you have to declare something a "scandal" in the headline of the story, it probably isn't.
A March 26 WND article by Aaron Klein carries the screaming headline "NEW SCANDAL THREATENS OBAMA, HILLARY: Report confirms what well-placed sources have been saying."
(Another note to WND: If the "scandal" headline can't be bothered to provide any hint of what exactly that "scandal" is, it probably isn't a scandal.)
It turns out the article isn't about a "scandal" at all per se, but is an exercise in self-aggrandizent through Klein congratulating himself for purportedly having his reporting confirmed by an actual news organization:
Confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times two days ago reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding Arab governments and Turkey in obtaining and shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels.
While the Times report claims most of the weapons shipments facilitated by the CIA began after the latest presidential election, Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND have said U.S.-aided weapons shipments go back more than a year, escalating before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi.
In fact, the Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND since last year describe the U.S. mission in Benghazi and nearby CIA annex attacked last September as an intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels in the Middle East, particularly those fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
Now the New York Times has bolstered WND’s reporting, citing air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders describing how the CIA has been working with Arab governments and Turkey to sharply increase arms shipments to Syrian rebels in recent months.
But the Times article Klein cites does not confirm some of his more salacious (and, as always, anonymous) accusations, such as that slain U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens "played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Assad’s regime in Syria." The Times article says nothing about that.
Klein also misleads when he suggests that the Obama White House was "misleading the public by repeatedly denying it was coordinating arms shipments to the rebels in Syria, insurgents known to consist in large part of al-Qaida and other jihadist groups." But the evidence Klein provides to back that claim shows only that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked by Sen. Rand Paul whether the U.S. was "involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya."
That's a highly specific question, not the general one Klein claimed was asked of Clinton.
Klein is in serious danger of straining arm ligaments patting himself on the back.
MRC's Bozell Lies About CBS Report on Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell writes in a March 27 column railing at the alleged lack of national coverage of the trial of an abortion doctor:
You can also see the anti-Catholic animus determining which trials are newsworthy in Philadelphia. On May 23, 2012, the "CBS Evening News" began with the trial of Monsignor William Lynn, accused of covering up child sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Scott Pelley wasn't shy about letting the prosecutor speak as she compared the Catholic Church with the Nazis at Nuremberg.
But when a pro-lifer uses Holocaust metaphors for an abortion clinic, he is condemned.
Bozell provides no context for the Nuremberg reference. In fact, Pelley did not "let" the prosecutor "compare the Catholic Church with the Nazis at Nuremberg" -- the prosecutor was labeling Lynn's I-was-just-following-orders defense the Nuremberg defense (as any such defense is typically labeled), and the statement appeared in a pretaped report, not live to Pelley.
In other words, Bozell is lying. To prove it, here's the transcript of the relevant segment from the May 23, 2012, CBS Evening News (via Nexis):
PELLEY: Good evening. In a Philadelphia courtroom today, the first catholic clergyman to face criminal charges for covering up child sex abuse said that he was following the orders of a cardinal. Monsignor William Lynn described a code of silence as priests suspected of child molestation were transferred from parish to parish in the hope that no one would notice. Elaine Quijano was in the courtroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELAINE QUIJANO, CBS CORRESPONDENT: Monsignor William Lynn testified he had no choice but to follow the directives of his superior, the late cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, including withholding information from parishioners about why predator priests were moved out of their churches.
"Did you or anybody you were associated with, or participate with, ever lie to parishioners about a priest going off into the sunset," prosecutors asked. "The Cardinal wouldn`t allow us to announce in those days why someone was leaving." Lynn said. Cardinals at a highest ranking clergy in the catholic church. They answer only to the pope. Lynn was in charge of recommending priest assignments and investigating child sex abuse allegations against clergy for 12 years. Today, Lynn testified he did not have the power to transfer priests from church to church, telling a Philadelphia jury he only had the authority to remove priests if they admitted to abusing someone. "Every time you put the victims first?" an assistant district attorney asked "I believe in my heart I was, yes," the monsignor replied.
(on camera): His argument is that he was just following orders. That he couldn`t do more than what he did.
LYNNE ABRAHAM: That`s what they said in the Nuremberg defense. I mean aren`t we tired of that defense "I was only following orders?"
QUIJANO (voice over): Former Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham first began investigating the archdiocese in 2002.
ABRAHAM: This is a jury`s decision to make. They`ll listen to it and decide whether Monsignor Lynn endangered children by not going to the authorities by telling the cardinal, look, if you`re going to continue on this path, I need to -- I need to leave here. I can`t do this anymore. You can do it, I`m not going to do it.
QUIJANO: Monsignor Lynn takes the stand again tomorrow morning when prosecutors resume their cross-examination. If he`s convicted he could face up to 21 years in prison.
PELLEY: Elaine, the monsignor took the stand today in his own defense. How risky was that for him?
QUIJANO: You know, it was a risk, legal analysts say, because prosecutors now have a chance to poke holes at Monsignor Lynn`s defense. Now, some here say this trial could go on for another two weeks and if that`s the case, that would then give his defense team an opportunity to repair any damage.
WND's Kinsolving Joins Call to Free Jonathan Pollard Topic: WorldNetDaily
Les Kinsolving is the latest WorldNetDaily writer to demand the release of Jonathan Pollard. From his March 24 column:
Pollard has served 28 years in prison. This is unprecedented among Americans convicted of spying on behalf of an American ally. There have been three other U.S. spies for friendly nations who have served less than five years.
Recently declassified has been a CIA 1987 Pollard damage estimate. His instructions were to provide Israel with U.S. intelligence information on Israel’s Arab adversaries and the military support they received from the Soviet Union. This included information on Arab chemical and biological weapons.
Pollard, a civilian U.S. Naval intelligence analyst, provided what were described as “suitcases full” of copies of classified documents to Israeli agents every two weeks. The CIA regarded this as a serious risk to American intelligence services and methods. There remains a question as to whether Pollard provided “suitcases full” or briefcases, 11 times.
Mrs. Pollard begged President Obama for mercy. And those asking for a presidential release of Pollard include the following: Israel’s President Shimon Perez; former minister of education and law professor Amnon Rubenstein; former U.S. Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger; former CIA Director James Woolsey; Lawrence Korb, Reagan assistant secretary of defense; Amos Yadin, Israel’s former director of military intelligence; and Gilad Shalit, Israeli captive of Arabs for five years.
Has anyone else in U.S. history ever received such a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally?
As we've documented, John L. Martin, former head of the Justice Department's counter-espionage section, says there is no distinction between spying for an enemy and spying for an ally. Contrary to Kinsolving's suggestion, Martin said that Pollard gave Israel access to a massive amount of classified documents -- enopugh to fill a space 10 feet by 6 feet by 6 feet.
Further, according to prosecutor Joseph DiGenova, Pollard was paid $500,000 a year plus expenses for delivering classified documents to Israel, and it cost between $3 billion and $5 billion to fix what he had compromised.
This is the guy that Kinsolving wants freed? Apparently so.
Newsmax Columnist Offers A Biblical Solution to Border Security Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax columnist Joseph Schmitz has an idea: Turn to the Bible for how to handle border security! From his March 26 column:
The United States Congress and the Obama administration should base U.S. border security policy on the subsidiarity-based framework implemented by Nehemiah four centuries before Christ.
Even as Congress and the current administration appear incapable (or unwilling) to solve our southern border threats, one of the underlying assumptions of any solution to those threats is recorded in the Old Testament Book of Nehemiah, and is also apparent from current observations of border-state property owners and officials who have to deal on a day-to-day basis with those threats.
Four-hundred years before Christ, after the Persian king had released the Israelites from their exile in Babylon and while Nehemiah, governor of Judah, was rebuilding the wall around Jerusalem, Nehemiah “stationed guards down below, behind the wall, near the exposed points, assigning them by family groups with their swords, spears, and bows,” admonishing the guards to, “fight for your kindred, your sons and daughters, your wives and your homes.” (Nehemiah 4:7-8).
Nehemiah also directed that half of the wall rebuilding workforce be “armed with spears, bucklers, bows, and breastplates,” standing “guard behind the whole house of Judah as they rebuilt the wall. The load carriers, too, were armed; each worked with one hand and held a weapon with the other. Every builder, while working, had a sword tied at his side.” (Nehemiah 4:10-11).
In order to be ready for any attack, Nehemiah directed that a trumpeter remain at his side, and instructed not only his noblemen and magistrates, but “the rest of the people” that, “Our work is scattered and extensive, and we are widely separated from one another along the wall; wherever you hear the trumpet sound, join us there; our God will fight with us.” (Nehemiah 4:12-14).
At the same time, Nehemiah “told the people to spend the nights inside Jerusalem, each with an attendant, so that they might serve as a guard by night and a working force by day.” (Nehemiah 4:16). Nehemiah thus established a cadre of 24/7 Wall Security Minutemen from the very people whose day-to-day livelihood depended upon that security.
Seems like this is crazy enough for WorldNetDaily to have come up with it first.
WorldNetDaily has figured out a way to cram a goodly number of its discredited anti-Obama and anti-government conspiracy theories into a single article.
An unbylined March 25 WND article starts off with a falsehood: "The surge of bullet-buying confirmed by the federal government – purchase estimates run into the billions of bullets – even as the U.S. military scrimps to find training ammo is raising lots of questions about the government’s so-far unexplained actions." As we've documented, the government has, in fact, explained their actions.
The article moved on to a year-old video by notoriously Islamophobic and gay-bashing ex-Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin , claiming it offers an "explanation" to the government's ammo-hoarding (despite the fact that, again, the government has already explained it):
On the video, Boykin explains simply that he knows the standard process for creating a socialist or Marxist state because he studied it as a military officer.
His concern is that the six steps “done in every Marxist insurgency” now “are being done in America today.” He lists them: 1. nationalize major sections of the economy (the corporate bailouts), 2. redistribute wealth (the man appointed to head Medicare said health care is “nothing but a redistribution of wealth”), 3. discredit opposition (Boykin said he’s “never been so angry” as when the Obama administration called returning vets, pro-lifers and others a terror threat), 4. censorship (since old guard media already was in line, Obama’s censorship has been through “hate crimes” legislation aimed at Christian pastors and others), 5. gun control (see Washington’s present agenda), and 6. a constabulary force.
That would be “a force that can control the population,” Boykin warned.
To those who say that isn’t present in the U.S., he responds, “Let me remind you that prior to the election (in 2008) the president stood up and said if elected he would want a national civilian security force as large as and well-funded as the military.”
Obama has explained that the "national civilian security force" is a reference to an expansion of the foreign service, not a military force.
But wait, there's nore factually deficient fearmongering:
He said while people may not think it’s happening, such a force already is in the law – of Obamacare.
“There are paragraphs that talk about the commissioning of officers in time of national crisis to work directly for the president,” he said. That’s “laying the groundwork for a constabulary force that will control the population in America.”
“Look at what’s happening. Get out and do something to help stop something. Use our constitutional tools. Let your congressman know how you feel about this. Be a pain in their neck … .”
WND previously reported on the Obamacare section allowing for the military like force.
According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps,” the force must be ready for “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises.”
In fact, the Ready Reserve Corps is a group of health professionals that can be call upon in times of national emergency, and has existed in various forms for more than 200 years. It is not, as WND claims, a "military like force."
If we wrote such a piece of fallacious crap, we wouldn't want our name on it either.
MRC's Gainor Has Anti-Gay Freakout Over Picture of Two Men Kissing Topic: Media Research Center
For someone whose job it is to be a watchdog of news coverage, the Media Research Center's Dan Gainor sure is clueless about how journalism works.
Gainor took to FoxNews.com to deliver a rant about the Denver Post putting a picture of Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino kissing his partner after the passage of a bill permitting civil unions in the state. Apparently, Gainor not only considers such a thing to be offensive to community standards even though he does not live in the Post's circulation area -- he puts "partner" in scare quotes to denigrate their relationship -- he does not consider such a thing to be news:
The Post ran that photo as its main front-page picture, taking up 20-25 percent of the front page.
They were shocked that not everyone was amused by a typical example of media promoting the gay agenda. The debate went national with both Huffington Post and even the prominent journalism blog Jimromenesko.com chiming in.
Director of Newsroom Operations Linda Shapley naturally defended the decision to run the photo. Choosing editor cliché No. 7, Shapley told readers: “As editors, it’s often our job to make difficult decisions.” But a little analysis shows they knew the impact it would have. They just didn’t care.
The headline on her column first read: “Mark Ferrandino kiss photo shows truth, no matter how objectionable.” But that offended the pro-gay lobby, so the explanation of the offense … offended. The new headline became “Picture of Mark Ferrandino kissing partner shows the truth, even if it offends some.”
Note that both versions emphasized the “truth.” Journalists are constantly convinced their view of the world is truth. All others not so much.
Gainor doesn't explain why that unambiguously true picture is not "truth."
He goes on to accuse the editor of engaging in a "self-serving defense," but Gainor's manufactured outrage is just as self-serving. He's working in service of an organization that puts its anti-gay agenda ahead of news value considerations, and he's nothing if not a loyal apparatchik for whom right-wing ideology comes first, last and always. Gainor doesn't care that gay relationships are news -- he doesn't want gays reported on, period, unless they are denigrated.
But Gainor keeps ranting anyway:
Readers who disagree or are offended because they might not want to explain two men kissing to a 6-year-old child, well they don’t matter. In years past, when newspapers were still popular ways Americans received news, editors were concerned with delivering a “family newspaper.” Now they care more that they are giving readers the propaganda of a “Modern Family” newspaper.
And it’s exactly what the left wants. The pro-gay group GLAAD, which aims to ban traditional marriage supporters from TV, makes it clear it looks to the media to propagandize. “What people see in the media has a huge impact and GLAAD ensures images of LGBT people and allies grow acceptance, understanding and build support for equality.”
The Post is right in one way. A picture is worth a thousand words and not one of them says anything kind to readers who are not liberal.
Presumably, Gainor would have no problem with the Denver Post running a picture of a bloody fetus on the front page to illustrate a story about abortion -- something that seems to be less offensive and disgusting than a picture of two men kissing.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Richard Bartholomew shoots down WorldNetDaily's promotion of a video (which, of course, it is selling) claiming that Jerusalem's Temple Mount is not in the correct place, and Jews can build the Third Temple without disturbing the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque so that Jesus can return. WND's Joseph Farah even appears in one promotional video. Turns out the filmmaker, Ken Klein, says a lot of goofy things, and Farah is apparently a sucker for any apocalyptic "last days" scenario.
WND Belatedly Objects to High School's Non-Gay-Bashing Play Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily, as befits its anti-gayagenda, does have a thing against theater productions that fail to indulge in gay-bashing.In 2010, for example, WND railed against a production of "The Laramie Project" because a member of the board of the theater company putting on the production was onetime right-wing pinata Kevin Jennings and because the play did not conform to right-wing revisionism regarding the death of Matthew Shepard.
In a March 23 WND article, Drew Zahn bashes a "public charter school" in Massachusetts for staging a production of “The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told," which retells the Book of Genesis from a "pro-homosexual" point of view.
Zahn's article appeared a week after the play was staged, so he was rather late to the controversy, making it a very old story the second it was published. Way to stay on top of the news, WND.
CNS Pushes Smears of Obama Nominee Topic: CNSNews.com
Craig Bannister uses a March 18 CNSNews.com blog post to uncritically repeat an allegation that Thomas Perez, President Obama's nominee for labor secretary, was involved in "a quid pro quo deal that potentially cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars," in which "Perez urged the City of St. Paul to drop a case it had before the Supreme Court in return for a Justice Department decision not to intervene in an unrelated False Claims Act case. That case had the potential to return over $180 million in damages to the U.S. treasury."
in fact, as Media Matters explains, there's no evidence that Perez did anything wrong, the St. Paul case was seen by conservatives as an opportunity to undermine the longstanding "disparate impact" doctrine of civil rights enforcement, and other civil rights activists encouraged St. Paul to drop the lawsuit.
Another March 18 CNS article by Fred Lucas front-loads allegedly scandalous allegations against Perez, such as "giving incomplete testimony on the controversial handling of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case" and being "disqualified from running for Maryland state attorney general."
But those allegations fall apart once Lucas gets around to explaining some of the circumstances. For instance, Lucas ultimately admits that Perez was not with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division when the DOJ dropped the New Black Panther case.
And the reason Perez was disqualified from his race for attorney general, Lucas eventually gets around to stating, is because "Perez did not meet the state constitutional requirement to have practiced law in the state of Maryland for 10 years to be eligible to run for attorney general." But that doesn't tell the whole story, which Lucas started off by suggesting corruption and flipping to suggesting incompetence. In fact, Maryland courts had ruled that Perez's experience as a lawyer for the federal government in Washington, D.C., did not count because he was not a member of the Maryland bar at the time.
WND's Ellis Washington Misquotes Obama Topic: WorldNetDaily
It wouldn't be Ellis Washington if he weren't getting something flamboyantly wrong, and Washington does just that in his March 22 WorldNetDaily column:
In a 2001 radio interview, Obama gave America a glimpse into the perverse mind of The Regime and what type of characteristics he considers in an ideal judge. Obama said, “… The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. …”
The most effective tactics liberal/progressives have used repeatedly to break free from the “essential constraints” of the Constitution was to enact the treason of the Progressive Revolution throughout every aspect of society via liberal activist judges and their anti-constitutional decisions. By appointing Sonia Sotomayor (2009) and Elena Kagan (2010) to the high court, Obama has openly shown his utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution, preferring evolutionary activist judges who legislate from the bench and share his tyrannous belief that the Warren Court (1953-69) didn’t go “far enough” in enshrining “redistributive change” (e.g., integrating Marxist/Alinsky socialist ideas in place of the rule of law into every area of society), thus effectively rendering the Constitution a dead letter.
As we documented years ago, Obama did not say the Warren Court didn’t go "far enough" in enshrining "redistributive change." He said that because the Warren Court "didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," that meant it wasn't as radical as its critics have portrayed it.
If Washington fails so utterly at basic reading comprehension, no wonder he can't find a tenure-track teaching job.
MRC's Graham Dowplays Swift Boat Lies Topic: NewsBusters
In a March 23 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham complains that NPR's Terry Gross noted that there were "so many lies" in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack against John Kerry during the 2004 presidential election. While Graham grouses that Gross didn't cite "anything specific," there were indeed lies and deceptions in what the Swift Boat group said.
Graham then insisted there were "firsthand testimonials on BOTH sides" of the Swift Boat issue, citing as evidence an ABC report that quoted Swift Boater Larry Thurlow. But Thurlow -- whose main function in 2004 was to deny that Kerry wasn't under enemy fire in an incident for which Kerry received a Bronze Star -- wasn't on Kerry's boat, he was on one nearby.
Graham also glosses over what was happening in that ABC report: the undermining of Thurlow's claims. Thurlow's own Bronze Star citation for the incident states that there was enemy fire. Thurlow never moved to returned his Bronze Star despite it being apparently awarded under false pretenses -- instead, he has made the unsubstantiated claim that Kerry was the author of the after-action report that allegedly resulted in the awarding of the medals.
WND Brings Back More Anti-Obama Pseudo-Science Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily, it seems, is determined to grace its readers with more Obama-bashing thinly disguised as pseudo-science from self-proclaimed profiler Andrew G. Hodges.
Hodges' stenographer, Bob Unruh, gives us his latest psychological projection in a March 22 WND article:
In his newest analysis, he looks further into Obama’s statements in his press conference about the sequester issue in which he berated Republicans for not doing what he wants.
Hodges said “another spontaneous image” appeared from Obama’s “super intelligence.”
“Asked whether he couldn’t have pushed negotiations until a deal was reached, Obama replied, ‘I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway,’” Hodges explained
“He suggests the secret wish to block the Republicans from the door to the government. Failing to negotiate, he has made every effort to demonize/crush Republicans to gain total control of the government after the 2014 election. His ‘have Secret Service’ image further suggests a desire to totally control major government law enforcement agencies– to block any opposition,” Hodges said.
“The frightening image ‘of blocking the doorway’ to those who oppose him suggests progressively ideas of imprisonment/forced containment, and a picture of martial law. Extreme? Likely so for now but equally a potential major warning of his true intent – if everything fell into place,” he said.
But Hodges noted objective actions that fit the pattern, such as the government’s purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, the estimated 145,000 federal agents with firearm- carry authority and the 65,000 agents for the Department of Homeland Security alone.
Hodges noted that even activists on the left have expressed concern. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the left-wing Code Pink, in a recent WABC radio interview with host Aaron Klein, called the potential abuse by the Obama administration’s huge domestic police power “extremely troubling.”
“Recall Obama’s earlier words which, importantly, he made spontaneously, strongly pointing toward an unconscious confession. ‘We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].’
“What exactly was he thinking and why? Undeniably this was extreme: a civilian force just as well funded and strong as our military – implying majorly armed. The question is what exactly was Obama secretly confessing about his future plans? His unconscious super intelligence suggests a warning from a very dangerous Obama,” Hodges contends.
Hodges' not-so-secret anti-Obama agenda is all too clear as he once again puts the image of Obama that exists only in his fevered brain ahead of the facts. He apparently reads only WND, which seems to be where he picked up his fearmongering about the government hoarding ammunition and the zombie lie that Obama wants to create his own private army.
As before, Hodges is merely projecting his own hatred of Obama and/or throwing red meat to the rubes who hate Obama as much as he does. What does his so-called "ThoughtPrint decoding" say about that kind of chicanery?