WND Hides The Likely Reason Limbaugh Lost His Hearing Topic: WorldNetDaily
Kathy Shaidle's April 8 WorldNetDaily article contains all they fawning you'd expect in a story about Rush Limbaugh, even when it's bad news:
He’s finally doing it: Thirteen years after Rush Limbaugh received his first cochlear implant, he will undergo surgery next week to receive one in his other ear.
In 2001, Limbaugh noticed his hearing was rapidly growing worse – a shocking discovery for anyone, but particularly tragic for a man who makes his living engaging with callers on talk radio.
But Shaidle doesn't mention the likely reason Limbaugh lost his hearing -- his addiction to painkillers.
As Salon documented, news of Limbaugh's hearing loss in 2003 coincided with news that Limbaugh was abusing painkillers. One of the painkillers Limbaugh reportedly used has been linked to sudden and profound hearing loss in patients who misuse or abuse the drug.
Given the links between the two and how both were big news at the time, you'd think Shaidle would have mentioned it.
Newsmax's Hirsen Tries To Portray 'Noah' As A Failure Topic: Newsmax
"Noah" was the biggest-grossing movie in the country on its opening weekend, so Newsmax's James Hirsen had to figure out a different way to attack it. His answer in his March 31 column: Market research!
The much-talked about, biblically questionable big-screen release “Noah” finished its debut weekend with a better than expected $44 million in box-office take. But when it comes to the movie’s long-term success, there are some dark clouds lurking on the horizon.
CinemaScore is a highly regarded market research firm that polls film audiences and rates their viewing experiences with letter grades. The firm reports its results and forecasts box-office receipts based on data collected.
CinemaScore’s representatives routinely survey opening-day audiences in 25 of the largest movie markets in North America to determine a grade ranging from A+ to F for the respective film. Most movies receive a minimum of “B+” as a CinemaScore grade, with anything less being cause for concern for the studio and filmmakers involved.
The controversial “Noah,” which was delivered to the screen by Paramount and director Darren Aronofsky, received a dismal CinemaScore of “C” from moviegoers.
Despite the buoyant box-office showing, the “C” CinemaScore rating seriously jeopardizes the movie’s chances in the all-important weeks to come.
If “Noah” should take a precipitous fall in the weeks to come, it may turn out to be an unprofitable venture for Paramount. According to the studio, the budget for the movie was $125 million, a relatively modest number for a current studio blockbuster.
However, several reports indicate that a significant additional sum was spent on marketing and distribution, so it remains to be seen whether the movie will be in the black months from now.
Well, perhaps not. Box Office Mojo notes that "Noah" is very popular outside the U.S. -- as of this writing, it has taken in $73.6 million in the U.S. but more than $106 million overseas for a total gross of $179.8 million. That means the film has made back its production costs and at least a part of its marketing in less than two weeks of release.
WND's Gun Columnist Unhappy That Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun Rights Topic: WorldNetDaily
The bamboozelment starts early in Jeff Knox's April 3 WorldNetDaily column:
The U.S. Supreme Court came down with a decision in March that effectively expands the base of people prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms in this country. In a unanimous decision in the case U.S. v. Castleman, the Court ruled that the law banning possession of firearms by anyone ever convicted of any crime of violence against a spouse or significant other – often referred to as the Lautenberg law – applies not only to crimes labeled as “Domestic Violence” or to such crimes that involve what an average person would consider actual violence, but also to things like pushing, shoving, or grabbing, even when no harm was intended and no injury sustained.
Many states have intentionally drawn a distinction between minor contact among family members during an argument and violence intended to harm, intimidate, or control. Those states’ common-sense approach to the matter has now been overruled by the Court, and convictions for charges like simple assault in cases like a woman slapping a cheating spouse, or a man pushing his way out the door to get away from an argument, will now include the mandatory loss of firearm rights for life – even if the incident occurred decades ago.
In fact, according to the Supreme Court ruling, the defendant in this case, James Castleman, pleaded guilty to "intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury to" the mother of his child.
Despite having gotten a fundamental fact about the case he's writing about wrong, Knox goes on to complain that misdemeanor domestic violence isn't really violent and, thus, not sufficient to take away the perpetrator's right to possess a gun:
Our legal system distinguishes between a misdemeanor and a felony based on the severity of the crime. By definition, misdemeanors are minor criminal acts that cause little harm. On the other hand, felonies are serious crimes that cause significant harm. Punishment for misdemeanors and felonies reflect this distinction. If a crime deserves felony-level consequences, then the crime should be classified as a felony. If specific acts that can be labeled as “domestic violence” do not rise to the level of felony crimes, then the consequences should not be felony consequences.
Rather than address the problem of serious domestic violence being labeled a misdemeanor in many jurisdictions, the Lautenberg law simply throws an extra consequence onto the misdemeanor – the loss of the right to arms for life. Serious domestic violence should be a felony. Minor incidents of bumping or pushing have always rightly been considered misdemeanors. There is no rational justification for those involved in such incidents being debarred of their rights.
The Supreme Court begs to differ:
"Domestic violence" is not merely a type of "violence"; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as "violent" in a nondomestic context. See Brief for National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. as Amici Curiae 4-9; DOJ, Office on Violence Against [*5] Women, Domestic Violence (defining physical forms of domestic violence to include "[h]itting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, [and] hair pulling"), online at http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/domviolence.htm.[fn5] Indeed, "most physical assaults committed against women and men by intimates are relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting." DOJ, P. Tjaden & N. Thoennes, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence 11 (2000).
Minor uses of force may not constitute "violence" in the generic sense. For example, in an opinion that we cited with approval in Johnson, the Seventh Circuit noted that it was "hard to describe . . . as `violence'" "a squeeze of the arm [that] causes a bruise." Flores v. Ashcroft, 350 F. 3d 666, 670 (2003). But an act of this nature is easy to describe as "domestic violence," when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other's control. If a seemingly minor act like this draws the attention of authorities and leads to a successful prosecution for a misdemeanor offense, it does not offend common sense or the English language to characterize the resulting conviction as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Knox concludes by lamenting that "the charge of 'guns for wife-beaters' resonates in the media," hampering any effort to repeal such laws, adding that "Labeling good people as criminals and taking away their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on minor lapses in the heat of passion serves no public safety purpose." Of course, if you've been convicted of domestic violence -- even a misdeameanor -- chances are you're not a good person.
MRC Ignores Criticism Of Its Hispanic Media Study By Hispanic Media Topic: Media Research Center
As we've noted, the Media Research Center's effort to monitor Hispanic media is hampered by its longtime hostility toward Hispanics. That disrepect has continued with its dismissal of criticism of its big report attacking Hispanic media as liberal.
After the MRC report was released on April 1, both Telemundo and Univision gave their reaction to Politico defending the accuracy and fairness of their reporting. Politico obtained another crucial viewpoint:
But Gabriela Domenzain, a principal at The Raben Group and former Director of Hispanic Media for Obama's 2012 campaign, said that when she worked at both Univision and Telemundo conservative guests often didn't want to appear on the network even when invited.
"I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the predominant reason why Republicans and conservatives are not seen more or cited more on Spanish-language news outlets is their own refusal to comment or be interviewed by the networks and publications that Hispanics read and watch the most," Domenzain said.
"When pressed on why they don’t bring this to light, (national publications) will respond with what most journalists would say: they fear that going on the offense and brining their futile attempts to interview republicans to light, will only damage the slim-to-none possibility they may have in actually landing an interview," Domenzain said. "Unfortunately this drowns out the reasonable conservative voices that would benefit the Republican party in terms of courting the Hispanic vote and also makes it very hard to get critical information to Hispanics on what the Republican positions are, how they may help, or hurt them."
But in their April 4 column promoting the report, the MRC's Brent Bozell and Tim Graham ignored what Domenzain had to say about conservatives refusing to appear in Hispanic media. Instead, they attacked a Univision spokesman for defending the network's coverage of the Affordable Care Act as a public service to its viewers.
If the MRC cannot even give its targets the respect of acknowledging the shortcomings in its research, why should they treat the MRC with the respect they seem to be demanding?
Politico noted that MRC officials plan to meet with executives at Univision and Telemundo to discuss the study, but the networks had yet to commit to such a meeting. Given the complete lack of respect the MRC has shown the networks thus far, we're not surprised.
What If WND Had A Brendan Eich In Its Midst? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah spends his April 7 WorldNetDaily column ranting against the "fascist Mozilla guerrillas" and "homosexualistas who targeted Brendan Eich" for donating to an anti-gay marriage campaign, adding, "Must everyone think alike in America today or face the persecution of losing one’s job?"
If there's a ConWeb outlet that has been the most hostiletogays, it's WND. So we'll ask the same question we asked about the MRC: Would a top WND official who was revealed to have donated to a pro-gay marriage campaign receive the same "fascist guerilla" treatment Farah claims Eich got?
Given that WND has a habit of publishing the most vicious gay-bashers like Matt Barber and Scott Lively and disinvited Ann Coulter for not hating gays enough, and givenFarah's own notable freakout over purported "forced homosexualization" -- plus the fact it's WND editorial policy to put the word "gay" in scare quotes -- we'd say the answer is yes.
Farah shouldn't pretend he's more tolerant than those who went after Brendan Eich, because he's not.
CNS Makes A Fallacious Obamacare Assumption Topic: CNSNews.com
Melanie Hunter writes in an April 3 CNSNews.com article, headlined "It’s a Loss in Md: 73K Lose Insurance; 60K Enroll on Exchange":
The head of the Maryland Health Insurance Exchange testified Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that only 60,000 people have signed up for Obamacare through the state’s exchange - 13,000 less than the number of individuals reported to lose their insurance due to Obamacare.
Hunter's article is based on a fallacious assumption: that there is a direct correlation between the number of people who lost their insurance and the number who signed up through the exchange. Hunter offers no evidence there is.
Further, as USA Today reports, the conservative media's claim that millions "lose their insurance" is itself in dispute. The Obama administration and insurance companies say the final number was lower than 500,000, because insurers automatically enrolled people in new plans or worked to keep their customers.
Instead of reporting that, Hunter highlights a Republican senator who insists on making that direct, fallacious correlation.
In a “free” country, your government can force you to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, but Muslim cashiers don’t have to check out pork or alcohol. These conclusions are inconsistent because liberals in power believe wholeheartedly in a double standard. If you are a liberal, you have rights. If you are a conservative, you don’t. You are, in fact, an evil, hateful person if you believe in traditional morality or, God help you, Christianity. You must therefore be denigrated, punished and silenced – and that’s only because the libs haven’t worked up the courage to murder you.
Importantly, and alarmingly, claims of “The Pink Swastika,” which link homosexuality with fascism are also being proven by the emergence of a form of homo-fascism in our own society. The forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is the latest example, but there are many in recent years. “Gay” bullies have become the new Brownshirts (just as they were the original Brownshirts).
Mark my words, these Pinkshirts will eventually grow as violent as the Brownshirts were. We got a taste of it when Floyd Lee Corkins attempted mass murder at the Family Research Council, following the inspiration of none other than the SPLC. The window-smashing lesbian riot against Ryan Sorba at Smith College a few years ago comes close. My own favorite was the time I received the “Truth Teller Award” from Peter LaBarbera’s Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, or AFTAH. Early on the morning of the event LGBT activists smashed out the windows at our host church in Arlington Heights, Ill., with a paving stone scrawled with the demand “SHUT DOWN LIVELY,” accompanied by threats of more violence posted on the Internet by the perpetrators.
History never repeats identically; there are always variations colored by culture of the day. The cultural color of Nazi Germany was brown, but in millennial America pink is the new brown.
Pro-homosexual advocates would have us believe that homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomenon and should be accepted as such. So, “here’s what do.” Since, according to its advocates, homosexuality is a normally occurring phenomenon, then nature should support it with naturally occurring actions. Granted, I am not a scientist, so I will defer to the reader’s judgment in this matter.
Here is the scientific experiment:
A) Mix, and maroon, any number of black, white, red, yellow, brown men and women on a deserted island in the Pacific and come back 30 years later.
B) Do exactly the same with an equal number of homosexual males, or lesbian females, and maroon them (separately) on deserted islands in the Atlantic, and come back 30 years later.
What would you find?
If homosexuality and lesbianism are naturally occurring phenomena, and everything reproduces “after its own kind,” then there should be a population increase in both Atlantic and Pacific islanders. If not, then one of the groupings violates “natural law,” evolution’s process of reproducing after its own kind. If homosexuality/lesbianism is “natural,” then like all other species, they should, within the arena of sexual activity, reproduce their species.
But then, as I earlier confessed, I am not a scientist, so I must be content with my own nonscientific judgment. Homosexuality is not “natural.”
Score another victory for the fascist Mozilla guerrillas of California.
Who are the Mozilla guerrillas?
They are the homosexualistas who targeted Brendan Eich, the new chief executive officer of Mozilla, the company best known for creating Firefox, for the outrage of donating $1,000 to support the 2008 Proposition 8 marriage-definition initiative that was approved by the majority of voters of progressive California.
Amazing how quickly American values are collapsing to the catcalls of a vicious, immoral minority of intolerant, fascist thugs.
Let me see whether I have this right. Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla because it became public that he opposed same-sex marriage, the same position President Barack Obama, darling of the LGBT community, held prior to his phony conversion.
Why didn’t the left demand that President Obama resign as president of the United States prior to the consummation of his “evolution” on the issue in favor of same-sex marriage? Was it because liberals knew he was never actually opposed to same-sex marriage and that his stated opposition was an opportunistic ruse to make him electable?
The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Mozilla doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes.
And right now that position is opposition to same-sex marriage.
America can have liberty or it can have Firefox. Right now, it cannot have both.
How Would The MRC Treat A Brendan Eich In Its Midst? Topic: NewsBusters
The Media Research Center has worked up predictable outrage over the ouster of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, displayed most typically in an April 5 NewsBusters post by Tim Graham.
Graham complains about "an obnoxious blog post by Farhad Manjoo in The New York Times," who points out that "Mozilla is not a normal company. It is an activist organization." Graham huffs that "activists apparently find it very distasteful to be less than 'militantly tolerant,'" adding: "In other words, those 'thoughtful Mozillians' believed Eich apparently needed to undergo 'conversion therapy' and become an 'ex-Anti-Gay,' and then he would be 'rehabilitated.'"
Graham seems to want us to believe that conservative organizations would never behave in such a manner. But is that really true?
Suppose a prominent MRC official was discovered to have donated $1,000 to to an anti-Proposition 8 campaign (Eich got in trouble for donating to a pro-Prop 8 campaign). How many MRC board members would resign, as happened at Mozilla? How harsh would the condemnation be in the right-wing media? How many times would it be described as a betrayal of the MRC's principles, which prominently includes denigrationandhatred of gays and other LGBT individuals?
Would that MRC official last any longer in his job than Eich did? Would he not be encouraged, if not coerced, into leaving? Wouldn't MRC employees also publish "thoughful" posts on the subject, all of them concluding with a desire to be rid of this burden? Wouldn't his former boss, Brent Bozell, express disappointment that he could not could rehabilitate his ideas about gay marriage?
After all, it appears that not hating gays is a disqualification for employment at the MRC. So let's not pretend that Graham and his co-workers would be any less tolerant if they were in the same situation.
In accusing President Obama of being a psychopath, as she does in her April 6 WorldNetDaily column, Gina Loudon is actually demonstrating her own psychopathy. It starts with her admission that "No one can make a mental diagnosis from afar, and I am certainly not qualified to make that diagnosis," yet attempting to make the diagnosis anyway.
More evidence of Loudon's psychopathy is the bogus evidence she uses to back up her claim of Obama's psychopathy. She claims that "Obama has taken more luxury vacations than any other president," ignoring that George W. Bush has taken three times as much vacation as Obama has. She also asserts that "Obama has golfed more than any other president," even though The Week reports that Dwight Eisenhower played four toimes as much as Obama has.
Loudon goes on to write:
The truly skilled psychopath can make his own biases look like they are the shortcoming of his opponent. When the New Black Panther thugs with clubs were intimidating voters during the 2008 election, those who voiced concern were called racist and alarmist for even bringing up the issue. Once elected, Obama had his attorney general, Eric Holder not only drop all charges but actually drop convictions!
In fact, nobody ever reported being intimidated by the New Black Panthers, and it was the Bush administration's Justice Department -- not the Obama administration -- that made the decision not to pursue criminal charges against them.
Loudon further demonstrates her psychopathy with a serious display of hatred that goes straight into Obama derangement:
After the second round of murders of government-guaranteed defenseless Fort Hood soldiers last week, Obama mustered a tear or two for cameras before slipping out the back door to head to a $32,000-per-plate party for himself.
This pattern of inauthenticity would be very difficult, even debilitating for someone with an intact conscience, in my opinion.
Another common trait of the psychopath is a mysterious and shady past. We know very little about President Obama’s formative years and little about his college years. Records are sealed or withheld, and requests for them are dismissed as ridiculous requests from paranoid detractors.
Perhaps most flagrant act of this president, if we are looking at evidence of psychopathy, is the lack of any substantive remorse, or responsibility shown for what happened to two Navy SEALs, an American ambassador and an information management officer, at the hands of vicious terrorists in Benghazi. The American public has repeatedly expressed outrage and fury for the lies and manipulations that cost these precious American lives, but the administration has arrogantly dismissed, excused and ignored any culpability or held anyone to account.
No one knew that Pol Pot, Hitler or Ceausescu were psychopaths until they knew. Could America be more perceptive, more insightful, more predictive of a psychopath in leadership before it is too late?
Such spewing of hate -- portrayed as a psychatric evaluation -- shows us that the true psychopath here is Loudon.
Terry Jeffrey's Transphobic Tirade Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey devotes an entire column to freaking out about the federal government is planning to treat transgender employees with respect:
When an expectant mother visits her doctor for an ultrasound, the doctor invariably asks: Do you want to know the sex of your child? The Obama administration, however, does not believe an unborn child has a sex — even when a doctor sees indisputable physical evidence.
Obama's Office of Personnel Management has published what it calls "Guidance Regarding the Employment of Transgender Individuals in the Workplace." This document speaks of "sex" as something a person has "assigned" to them only after they make it through the birth canal.
Then there is the point in the guidance governing restrooms and locker rooms.
"For a transitioning employee, this means that, once he or she has begun living and working full-time in the gender that reflects his or her identity, agencies should allow access to restrooms and (if provided to other employees) locker room facilities consistent with his or her gender identity," say the guidelines.
According to the guidance, access to a restroom or locker room should not be conditioned on anatomy.
Jeffrey doesn't mention the fact that there have been no problems with implementation of transgender-protection laws in the states that have done it.
Jeffrey then opines that "The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has submitted well-reasoned comments on the proposed rule." These are the same folks who issue dubious reports on sexual abuse by church clergy.
But relating facts and showing respect is not the point of Jeffrey's column -- fearmongering is:
The people who now run our federal government not only deny the basic facts of life, they are trying to force the consequences of their denial on the world that all the innocent little boys and girls born today must inhabit tomorrow.
Spoken like a true fearmongerer. But then, Jeffrey's Media Research Center co-workers regularlyfreakout about transgenders.
As far as we know, Joseph Farah has never served in the military. But that's not stopping him from declaring he knows what's best when it comes to guns on military bases in the wake of the latest Fort Hood shooting.
How is this even possible? I keep hearing that this new slaughter will be a “wake-up call” to the U.S. military. About what? About the problem of post-traumatic stress disorder. Shouldn’t it be a wake-up call to the insanity of disarming U.S. soldiers and other servicemen on military bases? Shouldn’t that wake-up call have come in 2009 when Maj. Nidal Hasan, an Allahu akbar-shouting jihadi psychiatrist, killed 14, including an unborn baby, and wounded 29 others?
How was the shooter stopped at Fort Hood? He was confronted by ARMED military police and killed himself.
Notice the emphasis on the word “armed.”
That’s why we have a military – because armed force is sometimes the only way to stop violent armed aggression. So why are we disarming our military personnel on military bases? If we haven’t gotten this wake-up call yet, we never will.
Gun-free zones encourage armed aggression. Off the base at Fort Hood, soldiers would be permitted to carry firearms. It’s Texas! Everyone is armed. Notice no such slaughters are taking place elsewhere in the state – only in federally mandated gun-free zones.
Could there be any more obvious cause-and-effect evidence to consider?
How many more need to die before even the gun-grabbers can see the destructive nature of such a policy – taking firearms out of the hands of men and women trained to use them to defend the country, leaving them defenseless on their own bases?
It should be obvious in an age of organized jihadist terrorism that undefended military bases would be a prime target. In fact, al-Qaida is known to have planned attacks on U.S. military bases. We have quite literally placed targets on the backs of every active-duty soldier stationed at home.
What kind of sense does this make?
Instead of a right-wing activist whose income depends on keeping up a sufficient level of outrage on his website, let's check out the viewpoint of someone who actually knows whereof he speaks and has a little more sense on the subject. Like, say, the numerous military veterans and base commanders who agree that more access to guns on military bases isn't needed.
Not good enough for Farah? How about a Medal of Honor recipient who points out that if everyone at Fort Hood had been armed the day of the shooting, "an enormous mass fratricide"?
We suspect that Farah's support of the military does not extend to experienced military men who disagree with his fringe views.
Newsmax Columnists Come to Pollard's Defense Topic: Newsmax
WorldNetDaily is not the only place where Jonathan Pollard apologists have come out of the woodwork.
An April 1 Newsmax article promotes the views of one apologist:
The U.S. government's release of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard is justified, says prominent attorney Alan Dershowitz.
"You have to remember that he made a plea bargain, and in exchange for giving up his right to trial [by] jury, he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for the government making a solemn promise that they would not seek life imprisonment … The judge, however, gave him life imprisonment and so the position of the United States government back then — and it should be the same position now — is that life imprisonment was not warranted considering the amount of damage that was done by this spy," he told Newsmax TV's John Bachman, J.D. Hayworth, and Morgan Thompson on "America's Forum" Tuesday.
The former U.S. Navy analyst was convicted of spying for Israel in the 1980s and has spent 25 years in an American jail.
"He's only a year away from his next parole date where he'll probably be released, so the United States is not being asked to give up very much. Israel, on the other hand, is being asked to release hundreds and hundreds of terrorists who might go back to commit new crimes. Pollard's an old man. He's not going to do anything to hurt America."
As we documented, prosecutor John L. Martin -- in a Newsmax artile by Ronald Kessler responding to Dershowitz's previous defense of Pollard -- has said that the classified documents Pollard gave Israel access to would fill a space 10 feet by 6 feet by 6 feet, and the law makes no distinction between spying for an ally or an enemy. Former prosecutor Joe diGenova pointed out that Pollard received about $500,000 a year plus expenses for giving intelligence documents to Israeli agents, and that it "cost between $3 billion and $5 billion to fix because of what he compromised."
The Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman went even further in an April 1 Newsmax column:
When the Pollard affair surfaced 28 years ago, there were claims by some that the sentencing of Pollard to life imprisonment was tinged with anti-Semitism. We at the Anti-Defamation League took that charge seriously, made our own investigation, and concluded there was no basis for such an accusation.
But as the years pass, and the world has changed many times over, and with more and more prominent Americans, including individuals from the intelligence community, saying "enough already," Pollard remains in prison.
Pleas for his parole are raised on a regular basis, but go unheeded. The whole thing at this late date makes no sense.
There surely is no information that Pollard possesses after all these years that can be harmful to American interests. The fact that Pollard shared information with an ally — Israel — was no reason for him not to be punished. But after this long imprisonment, the fact that it was such a close ally who received his information should have influenced a positive response when the subject of parole arose.
Foxman then plays the anti-Semitism card:
I am not one to equate what Pollard did, to betray his country, to the recent revelations that the United States has been spying on top Israeli leaders. Here too, however, these revelations add further context to the absurdity of the ongoing vendetta against this one man.
Yes, I use that word because that’s what it seems like at this point. If it were only a vendetta against one individual, it would be bad enough. But it has now become one against the American Jewish community.
In effect, the continuing imprisonment of this person long after he should have been paroled on humanitarian grounds can only be read as an effort to intimidate American Jews. And, it is an intimidation that can only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community, one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the years, the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to their own country, the United States.
In other words, the underlying concept which fuels the ongoing Pollard incarceration is the notion that he is only the tip of the iceberg in the community. So Pollard stays in prison as a message to American Jews: Don’t even think about doing what he did.
I come to this conclusion with much sorrow and, as noted, as someone who resisted efforts early on to connect the Pollard affair to anti-Semitism. It is harder and harder to do so any longer.
But it seems the problem is not that Pollard was more loyal to Israel than the United States, it's thathe wasn't loyal to the U.S. at all. The ChristianScience Monitor's Peter Grier reports:
Pollard peddled secrets that included details of US spy satellites, analyses of foreign missile systems, and the extent of NSA surveillance of foreign governments.
He reportedly offered material to South Africa, Argentina, and Taiwan, and was in touch with officials in Pakistan. Then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger testified in court that the US national security community suspects that much of what Pollard stole ended up with the Soviet Union, through the USSR’s own network of spies and moles.
The US intelligence community has not forgotten or forgiven Pollard for his actions. Any move to release him will surely spark a furious internal reaction.
Grier also notes that Thomas Brooks, former chief of naval intelligence, says that the extent of Pollard's spying is exceeded only by Edward Snowden, and that much of what Pollard took did not involve Israel at all.
WND's Corsi Cranks Out Lazy Journalism Topic: WorldNetDaily
Bob Unruh is not the only lazy reporter at WorldNetDaily. Jerome Corsi puts in his bid for stenography in an April 3 WND article touting how a "prominent environmental scientist" has denied the existence of global warming.
But Corsi did no reporting work of his own; all he did was rewrite an article that originally appeared in an British newspaper, with embellishments stolen from the Marc Morano-operated denier website Climate Depot.
But even as stenography goes, Corsi's is not very good. For instance, the person in question, Leslie Woodcock, is not an "environmental scientist," let alone the "climate scientist" the headline of Corsi's article claims he is. As Corsi himself notes, Woodcock's training is in chemical thermodynamics, which is not an environmental or climate science and, thus, should disqualify him from being taken seriously on the issue of climate change.
Corsi also studiously cribs Climate Depot's claim that Woodcock has "more than 70 published journal papers," but if you click on the hyperlink Climate Depot uses to support the claim, it goes to a single entry. And even if you follow the link at the bottom of the page for more content by Woodcock, it displays only three items, none of which appear to have anything to do with climate science.
Climate Depot's claim apparently comes from a bio of Woodcock, but even then, some of the examples listed are clearly marked as letters or other correspondence, not research.
Corsi, Climate Depot and the British newspaper all portray Woodcock as a former NASA researcher, but it's never substantiated, and even the bio of Woodcock Climate Depot cites makes no mention of it.
Corsi also references how Woodcock once received a "Max Plank Society Visiting Fellowship"; Corsi's stenography failed him again, because the organization is actually spelled the Max Planck Society.
The hackish and biased Bob Unruh turns another lazy performance in an April 2 WorldNetDaily article, coming right out of the gate to attack Common Core educational standards:
Students subject to the federal Common Core curriculum spreading in public schools nationwide will be fed “world citizenship mush,” charges an expert on education and cultural public policy.
It’s not far afield from what communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin wanted to do when he said, “Give me four years to teach the children … and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted,” writes Carole Hornsby Haynes in a WND commentary.
From there, Unruh transitions to a describing an anti-Common Core film relased by anti-Common Core homeschoolers that he wants us to believe really isn't anti-Common Core:
A new documentary, “Building the Machine,” has been released by the Home School Legal Defense Association to examine that very question.
While HSLDA has opposed Common Core since 2009, the group said it wanted a fair evaluation, so people will know the truth about Common Core.
Mike Smith, president of HSLDA, said homeschooling “has shown us that an individualized education is the best thing for a child.”
“Common Core is the complete opposite of that,” he said. “Our hope is that the film will cause a ‘great awakening’ and that parents will question the one-size-fits-all education reform being implemented behind closed doors.”
So filmmaker Ian Reid spent a year traveling the nation and interviewing education experts, including several Common Core Validation Committee members.
“We’ve been very clear from the beginning that our goal is not to produce a hit piece against the standards,” said Reid. “Rather, our goal has always been to explore the strongest arguments on both sides of the debate. In fact, we asked Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute, an ardent supporter of Common Core, to fact check the film, and he thanked us for fairly and accurately presenting what he believes about the Common Core.”
Of course, the HSLDA would never have released the film if it didn't ultimately attack Common Core. And Unruh is so determined to parrot pro-homeschooling propaganda that he can't be bothered to offer any balance to the story.
Thus, WND readers will never know that the Fordham Institute has put out a fact sheet addressing the film's errors:
The creators of this movie would like you to think the Common Core State Standards were created in a cloak of secrecy by a small group without the input of teachers, parents, or the public. They also falsely assert that state and federal governments broke laws in replacing old state standards. However, the process—organized by governors and state education chiefs—included many of the most accomplished educators and academics from across the United States, was thoughtful and deliberative, incredibly inclusive, totally transparent, and completely legal.
That runs counter to Unruh's pro-homeschooling narrative, so you'll never read about it at WND.