WND Columnist Invents A Secret Conspiracy That Got Obama Elected Topic: WorldNetDaily
Unlike most WorldNetDaily columnists, Marisa Martin at least begins her March 27 column with the warning that something crazy will follow: "Though based on actual events, portions of this column are dramatized to fit speculation."
Of course, what follows is much more heavy on speculation than it is on facts:
On May 1, 1958, a group of 32 Marxist sympathizers met in a Chicago hotel, planning the future disintegration of the American States. Organized by Soviet operatives, they were artists, writers, Hollywood producers, social theorists, professors, politicians and miscellaneous, hardcore Marxists.
Somehow they managed to evade the keen eye of CIA counterintelligence head James Angleton, who had been tracking members of the operation relentlessly, revealing moles and snagging spy networks like a spider in his web. He warned of Soviet disinformation and deception campaigns, which he believed reached into the U.S. government even then – but this one, far under the radar, went undetected.
Hours and many arguments later their plans ran aground as they concluded the U.S. military was too strong for any direct assault and the nation’s mindset was decidedly anti-communist. This would all have to change.
Hashing out a long-range plan decade by decade, they hoped to change public perception, weaken American resolve and install their man in the White House within 30 years. It took 50.
But the big prize kept ripening on the stem just out of reach for decades, an open, unapologetic communist in the White House. This required intense planning and a virtual convergence of factors in their favor: willing accomplices in media and Congress, voters equally ignorant of history and the Constitution and a flexible, change agent of their own creation.
9/11 opened the gates of destabilization and national soul-searching while several guerilla-Marxist art collectives saw their chance and rushed in. Quebec-based Deoconiste led the charge aided by the disarmingly named MASS-x, Angry Fishwives, Voxb#x and TuT-tUt.
Needing a blank canvas on which to cast their collective vision, they searched for a human Tabula Rosa, and many fingers pointed to Barrack Obama.
He was young and photogenic, a necessity for the massively visual Hollywood, blockbuster-style public relations campaign they planned. Neither black nor white, Obama could play the race card both ways and read a speech well.
The best part of Obama was his formlessness, the votes he never bothered to cast as an Illinois senator, the missing Selective Service and other records and the multiple personalities and pseudonyms he amassed by a young age.
Promoted through college by wealthy Saudi benefactors and the relentless, Chicago political machine, his tutors and benefactors Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn recognized Obama’s potential to spread Marxist power even then. You could do anything with a man like that.
The 2008 presidential campaign was a giant, ongoing, social experiment on America’s citizens. Could their perception and emotions be controlled using new media, mindless slogans and repetition? Would mass public disapproval and primitive psychological punishment, shame relatively conservative citizens into electing an unknown man primarily because of his color?
Hyped through Internet experts in social trust and deception, Obama’s empty phrases and patchy background were crafted into a solidly real man. The mass of citizens were tired of war and trouble and searching for a savior. Open ended “hope” and undefined “change” were filled in by individual minds who set aside rational thought and went with along with the highly entertaining program of the first design president.
Martin then spends the rest of her column defending her Obama derangement:
The assertions I make here are largely factual, but not all the details are. Consider it fictionalized history. Guerilla art collectives, some persons, dates and meetings are speculated details, while major action and background of the recent elections are historic fact.
Why create fictionalized scripts concerning Obama’s past when there is already so much damning evidence of his split loyalties? Won’t this just be assigned to the scrap pile of conspiracy theories already clogging the blogosphere? Yes, and that’s the point.
The very blankness of the man, his interchangeable histories, religions, names and identities, work against anyone who accuses him. It’s all a “conspiracy theory,” and who could prove otherwise? A thinking person of integrity and curiosity will attempt to fill in the gaping blanks and connect the dots, coming up with any number of speculations, which can all easily be denied.
Mindless masses aren’t the Obama administrations’ concern. The people who projected all their hopes for a better future on one human being have proved they are weak and easily manipulated by media hype and propaganda.
Ah, yes, the old WND lament that anyone who voted for Obama is either brainwashed or an idiot (or both). Or, as it's known in the real world, sour grapes.
MRC's Graham Unhappy That Climate Change Deniers Exposed As Unscientific Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham, in a March 27 NewsBusters post, is unhappy that NPR's Jennifer Ludden reported on conservative-driven "academic freedom" laws designed to force schools to teach the idea that climate change is not happening:
On Wednesday’s Morning Edition, reporter Jennifer Ludden was disturbed by what’s happening in science classrooms. Climate change “has been politicized,” and conservatives are pushing “so-called academic freedom bills” to teach both sides of that public-policy controversy.
“But critics point out there is no controversy within science. Climate change is happening and it's largely driven by humans,” Ludden announced. So then why is Ludden reporting a story on this so-called non-controversy?
Graham went on to write: "This is also NPR's rationale for liberal bias across the range of political issues: bringing in a conservative viewpoint is confusing to the public, so it's better to slant it toward the 'educational' advocates." Graham seems to have missed that schools should not be forced to teach a "conservative viewpoint" when that viewpoint is contrary to nearly every other credible scientific analysis of the issue.
Graham also overhooks the fact that his calling climate change deniers' arguments the "conservative viewpoint" instead of the "scientific viewpoint" pretty much shoots down his suggestion that deniers aren't trying to politicize the issue.
Obama isn’t going to say or do anything in Israel that will cause any concern to Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and the rest of his cabal. No doubt they are rubbing their hooves in glee at how he plans to humiliate Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu even more than he has already done.
If the ambition of the communist in the White House was to wreck America by reckless borrowing, he has succeeded. The sole reason why the United States is not in the same dire straits as Cyprus is that the markets cannot quite believe just how quickly what was once the world’s most prosperous nation has been brought down.
Back in the 1980s, a fictional pitchman named Joe Isuzu made a series of TV commercials promoting Isuzu cars and trucks. A fast-talking, smarmy-looking guy would make outrageous claims along the lines of “It has more seats than the Astrodome” and “It goes faster than a speeding bullet,” and everyone knew it was a takeoff on every overly zealous, ethically challenged salesman who had ever tried to sell you a lemon.
Today, it seems to me that we have his cousin living in the White House. I mean, is there anything our commander in chief says or does that doesn’t remind you of the cheapest sort of huckster? Instead of being the leader of the greatest nation on earth, this guy was born to work a carnival midway. He would clearly be right at home trying to con you into trying to knock iron ten-pins off a pedestal or blow several dollars trying to win a 10-cent Kewpie doll by shooting at mechanical ducks.
This week the world witnessed a shameless dog and pony show put on by President Barack Hussein Obama and the president and prime minister of Israel, Shimon Peres and Benjamin Natanyahu – a display that sought to effectively defraud the Israeli people, as well as Jews and Christians in the United States and throughout the world.
Traveling to Israel on his “new charm offensive” with his leftist and Botox-injected secretary of state, John Kerry, our so-called president sought to keep the coffers of Jewish money and votes flowing for the Democratic Party by making it appear that he is a reliable friend of the Hebrew state, such that the United States will come to Israel’s defense should the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and other hostile terrorist states and groups attempt soon to annihilate, as they have vowed, the land of Moses, King David and Jesus.
However, undercutting the “mullah in chief’s” sincerity even before he arrived in Tel Aviv was Obama’s televised interview with Israeli television, during which he claimed that his fellow Muslim mullahs in Tehran were over a year away from building an atomic bomb, which they have threatened repeatedly to use to annihilate Israel and the great Satan, the United States.
Media of ours and friends of mine are hailing the “success” of Obama’s visit to Israel as if it were as joyous as the liberation of Paris, as game-changing as the nuclear bomb and as important as the unconditional surrender of the bad guys in World War II. Me? I thought it was pretty cool.
There was an overhang in the atmosphere that, though we didn’t like to talk about it openly, Obama hadn’t really passed his deity exam yet to qualify as God, but now, finally, he did and we can all unlimber and rejoice. Well, as Hollywood’s incomparable Sam Goldwyn once said, “Include me out!”
Barack Obama until just the other day was the most anti-Israel president in America’s history. His idolaters wail, “What a leader we’ve got! He was anti-Israel, then suddenly he changes and, wow, look how hopes for the Middle East are spiraling upward!"
I know that Obama said that his primary concerns for his second term were major immigration reform and gun control. It’s probably just a coincidence, but despots often feel compelled to deal with those two issues. They usually deal with guns by confiscating them, while their immigration policy generally involves box cars headed off to Siberia or Auschwitz.
Give BHO credit for one thing: He sticks to his guns by insisting that the U.S. has neither a debt crisis nor a spending problem. As a result, most Republicans think he’s delusional, but, again, that’s only because of their perspective. They view him through the same lens as most of the conservative media, believing he is nothing more than an inexperienced, incompetent, naive guy, who, despite good intentions, is simply in over his head.
If one begins with the false premise that Obama is a well-meaning guy with good intentions, the conclusion that he is an inexperienced, incompetent, naive boob is perfectly understandable.
But therein lies the rub. No doubt BHO is well meaning, but only in the sense that he genuinely believes that Marxism will make America a better country. His own words make it clear that he is a lifetime, anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-liberty nihilist brimming over with anger toward those who work hard and succeed.
Terry Jeffrey's Stupid, Link-Bait Spin On Venereal Infections Topic: CNSNews.com
Yes, CNSNews.com editor in chief Terry Jeffrey really did write this in a March 27 article:
According to new data released by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 19.7 million new venereal infections in the United States in 2008, bringing the total number of existing sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the U.S. at that time to 110,197,000.
The 19.7 million new STIs in 2008 vastly outpaced the new jobs and college graduates created in the United States that year or any other year on record, according to government data. The competition was not close.
Jeffrey doesn't even bother to find any correlation between venereal diseases, the number of college graduates, and new jobs created -- probably because he knows there isn't one. This ridiculous comparison was done almost certainly as a click-gathering exercise, which Jeffrey succeeded at by making the top of the Drudge Report.
But shouldn't a real news organization be about reporting news instead of generating link-bait? The fact that said link-baiting comes straight from the top tells us news is not a priority at CNS.
WND Pushes False Claim Obama White House Won't Enforce DOMA Topic: WorldNetDaily
In a March 27 WorldNetDaily article, Taylor Rose asserted and uncritically repeated claims that the Obama administration is refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act:
A Supreme Court decision striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act could lead to the precedent the president could act like an “autocratic dictator,” said Matthew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University Law School.
By striking down DOMA, Staver said in an interview with WND, “It would set the precedent that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he does not.”
Ken Connelly, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund told WND in an interview that he “would not characterize it that way,” but yet said, “There is an inherent contradiction” today because the executive branch is refusing to enforce and defend the law of the land.
He said that is “incorrect” from a legal standpoint.
Staver and Connelly are not the only ones with concerns over the role of the president and the federal government’s power. Reuters today said Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern over the president’s decision to no longer enforce the laws of DOMA and called his behavior “very troubling.”
In fact, the Obama administration never claimed it would refuse to enforce DOMA. Rather, it has stated that it would no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in court.
NewsBusters Repeats False Claim About Unsafe Gun Handling Topic: NewsBusters
Ken Shepherd used a March 25 NewsBusters post to uncritically repeat a claim by the Washington Times' Emily Miller that an actor in a commercial for Mayors Against Illegal Guns "is handling a shotgun in an irresponsible manner, violating three cardinal rules of gun safety." Shepherd added: "It's perfectly legitimate to hire an actor for political campaign ads, but actor or not, is it too much to ask of a gun control group that insists it doesn't have a problem with guns, just guns in the wrong hands, to run an ad that exhibits some rules of common sense gun safety."
But Miller got it wrong, Shepherd's description of her as a "gun aficionada" aside. Miller claimed that the actor "has his finger on the trigger, as if ready to shoot," adding, "To make an ad demonstrating actual gun responsibility, the man would put a straight forefinger above the trigger guard to make sure he doesn't accidentally touch the trigger."
In fact, as Media Matters demonstrates, the actor's trigger finger is well forward of the trigger:
Don't look for a correction from either Miller or Shepherd -- that's not what they do.
Over the past few months, my e-mail inbox has been filled with the same viral video. Sent by friends, obviously shared many times over, the video depicts a lonely security guard near Underground Atlanta attempting to maintain a modicum of order so some level of commercial activity can exist at the Metro Mall.
With a video camera strapped to his chest, Darien Long has broadcast to the world the type of day-to-day tasks and demeanor necessary to provide security in what amounts to Third World conditions not far from Olympic Centennial Park.
There’s a reason the recently retired Neal Boortz lashed out that Atlanta needed a “few more dead thugs” a couple of years back, only to be excoriated by the compassionate left for doing so. When you watch Darien attempt to keep loiterers out of the Metro Mall in downtown Atlanta – in one case, having to use a taser on one woman as her three young children taunt him using foul language (warning: explicit language) – it’s only natural that you side with his version of “law and order.”
But it is in the actions of one man, Darien Long, that you see the type of mentality necessary to restore order from the chaos and anarchy of these urban areas.
MRC Silent on Unraveling of Menendez Prostitution Scandal It Demanded Coverage Of Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center sure wanted people to know about allegations of underage prostitution involving Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez when they first surfaced:
MRC chief Brent Bozell whined that ABC's Martha Raddatz didn't ask Menendez about the allegations during an interview: "If there were even a whisper that a Republican Senator had been sleeping with underage prostitutes, the very first question from Martha Raddatz would have been about those allegations. When it surfaces that a Democrat may have done something tawdry, the liberal media suddenly lose their journalistic curiosity."
Scott Whitlock huffed that a CBS reporter "suggested the allegations have 'all the earmarks of an orchestrated smear campaign,'" adding that "when lewd details came out about Republican Congressman Mark Foley in 2006, the networks filed an amazing 152 stories in just the first 12 days."
Kyle Drennen was upset that NBC accurately quoted Menendez calling the allegations a "false attack" by "political enemies."
Jeffrey Meyer grumbled that one Washington Post story on Menendez "omitted that the FBI is also investigating allegations that Menendez paid for underage prostitutes with girls in the Dominican Republican [sic]" and that it was instead mentioned in another Post story in the style section.
Geoffrey Dickens lamented the lack of coverage of Menendez's alleged "solicitation of prostitutes."
Dickens further complained that when the "Big Three" networks (apparently, those are the only television outlets that the MRC tracks, all the better for not having Fox News screw up their metrics) reported on Menendez at all, they failed to label him as a Democrat.
Bozell devoted a column to complaining that the media covered 'Marco Rubio taking a swig of water" but not that Menendez purportedly "enjoyed prostitutes."
Well, it seems that the media's caution was the correct decision, because the story has been falling apart for the past month, around the time the MRC stopped trying to hector the "liberal media" into covering it.
The collapse accelerated when it was reported that Dominican authorities have determined that three women who said they had sex with Menendez for money were actually paid to make the false accusations. This was followed by an allegation by one of the main sources for the right-wing Daily Caller's reports on the allegations -- which the MRC had been relying on -- asserted that he had been media outlets, including the Daily Caller, to fabricate the whole affair.
But not only has the MRC stopped hectoring the media, it's ignored the story completely -- not a peep about it has been mentioned at NewsBusters or any other MRC website since Feb. 21. That mean MRC readers haven't been told that the story has fallen apart like a cheap suit.
This kind of failure to update a story that no longer fits an outlet's ideological agenda is the kind of thing the MRC likes to call out others for. Now that it's guilty of doing the same thing, it's gone totally silent.
Is anyone surprised at the blatant double standard? We're not.
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.