Mainstream media in bed with global warming alarmists

interlakespectator.com | Dec 11, 2009

By John Coward

For years now Al Gore, the self-proclaimed guru on man-made global warming, has been running around the globe in his private jet telling anyone who would listen that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic climate changes on the planet.

Gore’s political influence at the United Nations led to the creation of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group backed by “scientists” in the climate community. IPCC has called for global governance over CO2 emissions which would result in trillions of dollars of wealth flowing to developing nations from the richer nations of the developed world.

Gore has said that the science behind the man-made global warming theory is “settled” and there is no need for further debate.

The so-called “Mainstream Media” has bought this line of thinking and has blindly trumpeted Gore’s cause without questioning the science behind the former U.S. vice president’s crusade. Recent revelations from the University of East Anglia in England that allege scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the university: cooked the climate data; black-balled scientists who dared to disagree; and refused to release their data and the methodology behind their findings.

Now the “Mainstream Media” is scrambling to do what should have been done in the beginning, long before the CO2 monster grew to the size and global scope that it is now.

Well, Mr. Gore, the “science” is not settled as more and more scientists, branded as deniers and radical skeptics, have begun to come out of the closet and challenge the scientists behind the CO2 theory to come clean with the facts and prove their case beyond a shadow of a doubt.

More than half the scientists at the American Physical Society, a venerable society of physicists founded in 1899 at Columbia University, are calling on their own society to withdraw their support from the science that supports the IPCC and its followers.

Princeton University’s Robert Austin has come out and said that, ” I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day.”

Declan McCullagh, on CBSNEWS Blogs, says others from the society have also weighed in on the issue. “Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research, calls the climate change axis a “cartel.” A colleague, Eduardo Zorita, went further and said the scientists implicated in the CRU e-mails that ignited the imbroglio “should be barred” from future United Nations proceedings and warned that “the scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.” One estimate from a free-market group says that 12 of the 26 scientists who wrote the relevant section of a UN global warming report are “up to their necks in ClimateGate,” McCullagh reported.

If CO2 is the truly the villain and cause of the planet warming to a point where civilization is at risk then it is surely important enough for our political leaders and scientists around the globe to find the truth. Science has never been about consensus; it’s about finding the truth.

The chattering classes gathering in Copenhagen to hammer out a global solution to a problem that may not even exist may want to put down their champagne glasses and demand the truth and not some kind of consensus.

Climate Smokescreen At The New York Times

AIM | Nov 25, 2009

By K. Daniel Glover

When holier-than-thou New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin decided not to publish e-mails that expose climate scientists as frauds because they were obtained illegally, Times watchers (including this one) rightly cried “Hypocrisy!“

One recent and one distant case of the newspaper rejecting Revkin’s new standard of journalistic ethics leapt to mind. In December 2005, the Times ran a front-page expose on the Bush administration’s covert wiretapping program against presumed terrorists even after being warned that it could jeopardize national security. And in 1971, the Times made history by publishing the Pentagon Papers about U.S. military involvement in Vietnam.

But a far better example of the paper’s hypocrisy has escaped notice — until now. In May 1994, the Times published a series of stories about the tobacco industry that were based on the pre-Internet equivalent of leaked e-mails. The paper’s coverage later led to a book by reporter Philip J. Hilts titled Smokescreen: The Truth Behind The Tobacco Industry Cover-up.

The circumstances surrounding the tobacco industry then and the climate science community now are remarkably similar, yet the Times reached exact opposite conclusions about how to cover the news. This time Revkin and the paper, as well as much of the mainstream media, have created a smokescreen to protect fraudulent scientists whose agenda they support.

Tobacco under fire

Democrats began targeting the tobacco industry after Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., led the charge as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health and the Environment.

Waxman’s probe led to a dramatic April 14, 1994 hearing where top executives from tobacco companies swore under oath that nicotine is not addictive. At about the same time, a whistleblower contacted Hilts and handed over internal memorandums that proved the Brown & Williamson tobacco company had known the health dangers of tobacco for decades.

Like “hide the decline” from the hacked global warming e-mails, the Brown & Williamson documents had a memorable money quote: “Moreover, nicotine is addictive. … We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug.”

Hilts described the revelations in an interview with PBS for its “Smoke In The Eye” special:

Once we got these papers in hand, it became very clear that they knew a lot very early on, that they were deliberately hiding things, and that they were deliberately trying to keep them out of court and so on — at the same time saying these things were not true, saying cigarettes are not addictive, and yet they have their own studies which show how addictive it is and exactly how the addiction works and so on. … They did all kinds of studies on the hazards of cigarettes and inhalation of tobacco and so on and found a lot of problems. Well, we never heard about this, but they knew it all early on.

Brown & Williamson, along with the rest of the tobacco industry, understandably wanted to quash publicity of the documents. The company convinced a judge in tobacco-friendly Kentucky to impose an injunction against their release because Merrill Williams, a temporary paralegal assigned to Brown & Williamson, allegedly stole them.

The company felt compelled to fight release of the documents. “They’ve been hiding this for years,” Hilts told PBS. “It would make them lose case after case in court.”

But the Times, motivated by a commitment to journalistic integrity and the First Amendment, defied the injunction and published its stories. “Oddly enough there were virtually no legal concerns at the Times,” Hilts said, adding that “all the way along, the lawyers … were very supportive. They really wanted to see the stories in the paper.”

Hilts criticized ABC for not reporting on the documents even though the network had them before he did. “Lawyers for the entertainment business are more skittish, are more difficult,” he told PBS, “and in fact they get involved in the news more, probably more than they should. … I don’t think, in newspapers, reporters would put up with that.”

Hot global warming e-mails

Print reporters without links to the entertainment industry may well be more committed to battling media lawyers in order to break major news, but they clearly are not immune to self-censorship. Unlike Hilts, Revkin chose not to post the global warming e-mails.

His defense: “The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye.” If Hilts and other journalists had neglected their duty like Revkin and company are in covering “ClimateGate,” the tobacco industry never would have been forced to settle with state prosecutors in 1998 and might not have been subjected to federal regulation this year.

Michael Moore, the former Mississippi attorney general who led the legal fight against the tobacco industry in the 1990s, called the Brown & Williamson papers “probably still the most damming documents ever produced against the industry.” Hilts said they “probably are the single-most important pieces of paper in the history of tobacco versus public health.”

The global warming e-mails revealed last week are just as significant. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” climate expert Patrick Michaels said. Even British writer and environmental activist George Monbiot acknowledged that the e-mails are a “major blow” and urged Phil Jones, the head of the climate research unit that was hacked, to resign.

The timing of the climate e-mail hacking also is reminiscent of the tobacco timeline in 1994 — and thus equally newsworthy. Just as whistleblowers started pushing documents into the media while the Food and Drug Administration and Congress weighed tobacco regulation, the global warming e-mails were posted online days before world leaders gather in Copenhagen next month to ponder draconian rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions.

And as with the tobacco documents, the global warming e-mails focus on scientific research. “These behind-the-scenes discussions among leading global-warming exponents are remarkable both in their candor and in their sheer contempt for scientific objectivity,” Rochester Institute of Technology professor Ivan Kenneally wrote in The New Atlantis.

“There can be little doubt after even a casual perusal that the scientific case for global warming and the policy that springs from it are based upon a volatile combination of political ideology, unapologetic mendacity and simmering contempt for even the best-intentioned disagreement.”

It’s the news judgment, stupid

The hacking angle to ClimateGate is a legitimate one to pursue, but it is not the most important angle. The appropriate response is for journalists at The New York Times and elsewhere to behave as they did after Hilts exposed the stolen tobacco documents in 1994.

“We had more papers after that,” Hilts said. “We went around and found more stuff. More people started coming out of the woodwork and so on. So it was a pivotal moment.”

Fourteen years ago, the Times scolded CBS for self-censorship when it decided to spike an interview with tobacco whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand, who later became the central character in the 1999 movie “The Insider.” The network later reversed course and aired the interview.

Hopefully Andrew Revkin and the Times will redeem themselves and do likewise by giving the global warming e-mails the scrutiny they deserve.

(Author’s note: I covered the 1994 tobacco debate for Congressional Quarterly and attended the game-changing hearings with Hilts. Thanks to blogger James Joyner for jogging my memory.)

---

K. Daniel Glover is the online communications strategist for AIM for Accuracy In Media. He has worked as an editor, writer and new media specialist in the Washington area since 1991, spending most of that time at National Journal and Congressional Quarterly.

CNBC – Dollar Will be Utterly Destroyed, Global Currency, New World Order

Youtube | Nov 6, 2009

Posted by: SignificantImagery

The dollar will get “utterly destroyed” and become “virtually worthless”, said Damon Vickers, chief investment officer of Nine Points Capital Partners. Due to the huge wage disparities between the United States and emerging markets like China, Vickers said that may resolve itself in some type of a global currency crisis.

“If the global currency crisis unfolds, then inevitably you get an alignment of a global world government. A new global currency and a new world order, so we may be moving towards that,” he said.

For those who have claimed this is a fake clip I suggest you visit CNBC’s website:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33709379

Note the inverted pyramid/illuminati triangle with the hypnotic spinning lights of Nine Points Capital Partners in the background. – PJ

Glenn Beck Warns of ‘Reichstag Event’

Glenn Beck Exclusive: Warns of ‘Reichstag Event’

Newsmax | Sep 29, 2009

Media phenomenon Glenn Beck recently sat down with Newsmax for an exclusive interview offering his take on everything from President Obama, to the threat to talk radio and even a worry that our Constitutional government may disappear after a “Reichstag” event takes place.

The candid, wide-ranging interview appears in the October issue of Newsmax magazine, and is included in the special report “Glenn Beck Wants You!” that takes an in-depth look at the TV host whose Fox News show has been breaking ratings records since it burst on the scene in January.

Beck, who is also thriving on the radio, in bookstores and on the comedy circuit, sat down with Newsmax magazine’s Editor in Chief Christopher Ruddy and voiced his concerns about a coming attack on talk radio.

But his real worry is that many Washington elitists really don’t like our form of government and want to see it abolished.

“I fear a Reichstag moment,” he said, referring to the 1933 burning of Germany’s parliament building in Berlin that the Nazis blamed on communists and Hitler used as an excuse to suspend constitutional liberties and consolidate power.

“God forbid, another 9/11. Something that will turn this machine on, and power will be seized and voices will be silenced.”

Beck has also been a fierce critic of President Obama. Still, he said he’s open to a meeting with Obama. Beck doesn’t believe the president “necessarily would” speak directly to him, adding: “I don’t know very many politicians that speak directly.”

Beck also talked to Newsmax about his critics, his best-selling book “Common Sense,” his condemnation of George W. Bush’s presidency, government control of the media and “the only thing that will save this country.”

BBC plans 37 more Big Brother cameras to stop terrorists and protesters

The BBC intends to install 37 new CCTV cameras on the outside of its west London headquarters.

The corporation claims that it needs the extensive security measure because of its status as a high-profile target for terrorists and protesters.

BBC | Sep 14, 2009

By Jon Swaine

It plans to increase the total number of cameras on Broadcasting House to 50 – far more than the six that appear on the nearby Chinese embassy.

The corporation claims that it needs the extensive security measure because of its status as a high-profile target for terrorists, protesters and thieves.

However, the plan – which comes amid sustained criticism of the BBC’s expenditure – was described by campaigners as an “unwise and untimely” waste of licence-fee payers’ money.

Planning documents filed with Westminster council show that the corporation intends to install a range of different devices on all four sides of the headquarters, part of which is a Grade II* listed building.

It will install 24 static dome cameras, seven conventional wall cameras and six remote-controllable dome cameras.

Designers contracted by the BBC to carry out the work said in the application: “The camera positioning and type has been based on advice from BBC security specialists and the Government security service.”

The application comes five years after a similar move to have 13 cameras installed as part of the gradual redevelopment of the corporation’s London base.

The 2004 application detailed why the BBC believed it needed the devices. It said: “The BBC has been a recent target for IRA terrorism.

“[It] considers that the centralisation of its news activities could make it potentially a target for international terrorism. Recent events across the world have highlighted this threat, particularly to state institutions.”

It added that the risk of theft of expensive broadcasting equipment and protests against programmes further justified the measures.

However Simon Davies, the director of Privacy International, said: “The BBC has far too elevated a view of itself as being under threat.”

The plan comes after an internal Metropolitan Police report released last month disclosed that fewer than one crime was solved by every 1,000 CCTV cameras.

Mr Davies said: “At the point where everyone is starting to agree that these cameras are of limited value, I’d have thought the BBC would use money more wisely.

“It’s untimely but also indicative of an unwise spending dysfunction within the organisation. Whoever took this decision needs to be reined in.”

The Liberal Democrats said the corporation was contributing to the “Big Brother state”.

Don Foster, the Lib Dem culture, media and sport spokesman, said: “Sadly the BBC seems to be in line with National Government. The UK has one per cent of the world’s population and 20 per cent of its CCTV cameras.

“Clearly, the BBC helping to ensure we stay at the forefront of being a Big Brother state. This a prime example of the BBC’s skewed priorities.”

A BBC spokesman said: “This is part of an application for our redevelopment of Broadcasting House, the BBC’s London headquarters. We never discuss security issues.”

A spokesman for Liberty, the civil liberties campaign group, urged firms and public bodies to ensure that their approaches to security measures were guided by “proportionality”.

“CCTV can be a valuable tool in crime detection and prevention, but it is not a silver bullet. It is dangerously unregulated,” she said.

9/11 panic on Potomac

A U.S. Coast Guard boat participates in a training exercise on the Potomac River in Washington, September 11, 2009, setting off a security scare as the United States marked the eighth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates had been attending a ceremony nearby at the Pentagon when the Coast Guard incident took place. The Virginia shoreline is at rear. Reuters

Coast Guard exercise, false media reports fuel fear on commemoration day

Baltimore Sun | Sep 12, 2009

By Paul West

WASHINGTON — – The Coast Guard promised a full investigation Friday after a training exercise on the Potomac River grounded flights at Reagan National Airport amid media-fueled fears of another Sept. 11 incident.

False TV reports about machine gun-equipped Coast Guard vessels firing on a suspicious craft in a security zone not far from a 9/11 commemoration at the Pentagon prompted sharp criticism of the government for staging the drill at such a sensitive moment. In turn, the White House pushed back against cable TV networks for erroneous “breaking news” reports.

Vice Adm. John P. Currier said the Coast Guard would conduct “a top-to-bottom review” of the exercise, which had been authorized by its commander in Baltimore.

Democratic Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, chairman of a House subcommittee that oversees the Coast Guard, said he could not understand why the service would be simulating an incident on the Potomac “when the nation was on high alert, when families of 9/11 victims were nearby and when the president was either in the vicinity or had just left,” without at least notifying relevant authorities in advance.

The Baltimore congressman said that he was listening, with alarm, to CNN’s live coverage on his car’s satellite radio, “and I was wondering, ‘Do we have another terrorist-type situation where they want to commemorate 9/11?’ ” He said his committee would look into the incident.

During the exercise, which began about 9:30 a.m., four 25-foot patrol craft churned up the surface of the river while a Coast Guard helicopter zoomed low overhead.

Unaware that it was only a simulated confrontation, CNN, which was monitoring police radio frequencies, relayed the Coast Guard conversations to its audience. Within minutes, Reuters news agency and Fox News Channel picked up the CNN story.

FBI and local police vehicles rushed to the scene, apparently in response to the CNN report. The Federal Aviation Administration halted takeoffs at National Airport, whose flight paths follow the river, for about 20 minutes.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs harshly criticized the news coverage.

“Before we report things like this, checking would be good,” he said.

CNN said it called the Coast Guard public affairs office in Washington before airing its initial report and was told by a spokeswoman that she was unaware of anything happening on the Potomac. It took about 30 minutes before the network let viewers know that it had raised a false alarm.

“Given the circumstances, it would have been irresponsible not to report on what we were hearing and seeing,” the network said in a statement.

At a hastily called noon news conference, Currier, the Coast Guard’s chief of staff, said there had been “really no reason” to provide any advance warning to other law enforcement agencies or the public about the drill, which he called an “everyday exercise.”

Public advisories are routinely issued in advance about exercises involving military flights over the Washington area, to help avoid unnecessary confusion.

President Barack Obama, who attended the Pentagon ceremony with his wife, Michelle, crossed a Potomac bridge close to the scene around the time that the exercise was under way.

Currier said the exercise had been authorized by the Coast Guard unit in Baltimore that is responsible for operations in the national capital region. The Baltimore office is commanded by Captain Mark P. O’Malley, a 28-year Coast Guard veteran. A call to O’Malley’s office was not returned.

The incident “sounds very much like the left hand didn’t know what the right hand was doing,” Sen. George V. Voinovich of Ohio said in a statement.

Voinovich, senior Republican on a homeland security subcommittee, said that the “anxiety caused by this situation on such a solemn day is extremely disturbing.”

A military families’ advocacy group that has been critical of Obama administration policies, including its handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, issued a statement deploring the training exercise as “absolutely inexcusable.” It called on the government to hold accountable those responsible for authorizing the Coast Guard training.

“This training exercise not only caused unwarranted stress for [9/11] families but it was a distraction from the purpose of today,” the group Military Families United said in a prepared statement.

The incident had echoes of a White House photo shoot last spring, in which two fighter planes and an Air Force jumbo jet from the presidential fleet flew low over New York harbor, panicking residents who feared a repeat of the 9/11 attack. A White House aide who authorized the flight subsequently resigned.

‘9/11: Junk Science and Conspiracy – The Fairy tale narrative that goes down like Soma

Deadline Live | Sep 1, 2009

By Jack Blood

Well … I guess I can turn in my “truther” membership card now. Watching the half baked “scientific” experiments performed on the National Geographic Channel last night, embedded with the Cheshire like Matt Taibbi, I was left thinking… Where’s the beef.

Nope, this highly promoted documentary intended to be the final debunking of the crazy 911 truther movement, and the science that drives it….Completely collapsed into it’s own foot print, and went down like over cooked mac n cheese.

Not that anyone who has done a modicum of research into the so called official story of 911 didn’t know what was coming… personally I expected more. In the war for hearts and minds, the generals of 911 debunking came at us with a wet thud from their expert pea shooters. In other words, the “docuganda” piece was highly predictable, and toothless.

The two hour hit piece of crap began by setting up the credibility of their experts, IE: Random controlled demo guys, and several men in hard hats with official sounding titles.. These geniuses would then set up a series of “gotcha” conclusions for a panel of 911 luminaries such as David Ray Griffin (PhD, theologian, author of A New Pearl Harbor etc…), Richard Gage (An Architect with years of experience designing steel framed buildings, architects and engineers for 911Truth) Steven Jones (PhD, and “retired” er Defrocked professor / Physicist) and Dylan Avery (writer, director of the famed Loose Change series)

Full Story

National Geographic Channel to air special, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy.”

WHODUNIT: The view of 9/11 from New Jersey and (inset) Sander Hicks, who has problems with an upcoming TV special .

The Story Behind 9/11: Hit or Myth?

EIGHT years after Sept. 11, the debate over what ex actly happened that tragic day — and who is to blame — rages on.

NY Post | Aug 28, 2009

By MAXINE SHEN

Several of the most widely known tenets dear to the hearts of those who don’t believe the official explanation for what brought down the Twin Towers are put to the test Monday night in an unusual National Geographic Channel special, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy.”

* Was the Pentagon hit by an airplane or a missile?

* Did the Twin Towers really collapse from fires caused by burning jet fuel?

* Or were carefully placed explosives inside the buildings the real cause of its collapse?

The special is built around a series of scientific experiments that were conducted under the watchful eyes of a group of Truthers — the name the conspiracy movement has given itself.

But at least one local Truther — Sander Hicks, producer of WeDemandTransparency.com and author of the controverisial conspiracy book, “The Big Wedding” — has seen a critic’s DVD of the special and has his own reaction:

“This documentary is clearly part of the cover-up,” he says.

Hicks takes issue with everything from the way the documentary seemed to brush off Truthers as being “sick, stupid and psychologically damaged because we need the truth,” he says, to its choice of scientific experts.

Not suprisingly, his biggest criticism was with the way the experiments were conducted.

“It’s pseudo-science,” Hicks says. “Any high school student would tell you, to do experiments in New Mexico [where much of the pyrotechnic tests were conducted] with different kinds of materials is a joke.”

The explosives planted in the WTC argument? The TV special tested with only regular thermite (a pyrotechnic compound) and not “super thermite” as Truthers believe was the culprit.

“That’s like saying, ‘We want to do an experiment with whiskey, but we’re going to use beer instead,” Hicks says.

While the reason for this is explained in the documentary — there’s a question as to super thermite’s actual existence — executive producer Erik Nelson says he’d been dealing with the debunking debunkers for a while now.

Nelson, who says he “didn’t have a dog in this hunt,” insists that the goal of “9/11: Science and Conspiracy” wasn’t to debunk Truthers, sway any minds or hide contrary test results.

The producer concedes he would’ve loved it if the Truther theories were proven correct.

“Our ratings would’ve gone through the roof!” he says.

“What do you think is more ratings grabbing: proof 9/11 was a conspiracy or proof that the official story was correct?” he asks. “It would’ve been fantastic to prove that the Truthers were correct, but sadly — as far as my ratings are concerned — that’s not what happened.

“I would say that [Hicks'] response would be no different from the Truthers we shared our results with in the film,” Nelson says — “absolute rejection of every single point we’re bringing up.”

He goes on to add that “there’s no more pseudo-science used in our forensic tests than the pseudo-science used in promoting the Truther theo-

One thing that Hicks did like about the documentary was that it gave the featured Truthers a fair shake.

They “come off as careful and professional, unemotional, but compassionate about the truth,” he says. “A lot of times a documentary like this will cut up their words,” but this one didn’t.

“I actually take great hope from this [documentary] because it really shows that our opposition is on the ropes,” Hicks says.

“One good thing about this documentary is that it’s showing that the topic is still relevant and that the case isn’t closed.”

Racist hate-monger Hal Turner trained to be an “Agent Provocateur” by FBI

Harold “Hal” Turner, right, of North Bergen, N.J., leaves Superior Court in Hartford on Monday, June 22, 2009, after he was arraigned on a charge of inciting violence against state lawmakers. (JESSICA HILL / AP / June 22, 2009)

Hartford Courant | Aug 18, 2009

Lawyer: FBI Trained Hal Turner As An “Agent Provocateur”

By DAVID OWENS

HARTFORD — – Internet blogger Harold “Hal” Turner’s attorney said today that Turner’s background as an FBI informant will be a key part of his defense to charges that he incited violence against two state legislators and a state ethics official.

Superior Court Judge David P. Gold on Tuesday authorized Michael A. Orozco, a New Jersey attorney, to represent Turner. Turner did not appear again in court Tuesday because he remains in federal custody without bail in Chicago, where he is accused of threatening three federal judges.

In asking Gold to allow Orozco to represent Turner, Turner’s Connecticut lawyer, Matthew R. Potter, said Orozco has a long-term legal relationship with Turner, plans to bring a complicated First Amendment defense and is familiar with Turner’s background as an FBI informant.

That role as an informant for the FBI is a key part of the defense, Orozco said outside court.

Orozco said Turner was trained by the FBI as “an agent provocateur.”

“Mr. Turner was trained by the FBI,” Orozco said. “He was told where the line was — what he could say.”

In his comments on his blog that brought the state and federal charges, Turner did not cross that line, Orozco said.

Orozco said Turner worked for the FBI from roughly 2002 to 2007.

“His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner that would cause their arrest,” Orozco said.

The comments for which he is charged came after he left the service of the FBI, Orozco said.

Turner stopped working for the FBI on his own, Orozco said. He declined to say who the targets of his comments were.

“If you compare anything he said when he was operating, there’s no difference” to what he posted on his blog that led to the criminal charges, Orozco said.

He is scheduled to go to trial on the federal charges on Oct. 5. His next court date in Hartford is set for October 19.

“Most trusted man in America” pushed globalist agenda

In this Aug. 25, 1998 file photo, President Clinton waves as he sails with wife Hillary and daughter Chelsea aboard a sailboat skippered by former CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite near Edgartown, Mass. Famed CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite, known as the ‘most trusted man in America’ has died, Friday, July 17, 2009. He was 92.AP Photo

Meet the real Walter Cronkite

‘Most trusted’ newsman pushed radical agenda

WorldNetDaily | Jul 18, 2009

By Joseph Farah

WASHINGTON – Walter Cronkite is dead at 92 – but most Americans, many of whom considered him “the most trusted man” in the country during his reign as CBS News anchor – still don’t know what motivated him and how he secured such an influential and lofty position.

He was like a grandfatherly institution in the early days of TV. People believed him. Uncle Walter wouldn’t lie, America believed.

Thus, when he gave his opinions, they had impact. One example was his report on the Tet offensive in Vietnam, which is credited with swinging the tide of opinion against the war.

Even in his death, however, nobody has addressed how and why an otherwise obscure figure at the time was elevated to become the most prominent anchorman on television.

The story was told publicly in the July 10, 2000, edition of the Nation, a Marxist-oriented journal, in a report on death of Blair Clark, who served as editor of the Nation from 1976 through 1978: “Whether it was calling on Philip Roth to recommend a Nation literary editor or persuading CBS News president Richard Salant to make Walter Cronkite anchor of CBS Evening News, Blair had a gift for the recognition and recruitment of excellence.”

Clark was not only the editor of the Nation, he was also heir to the Clark thread fortune, a Harvard classmate and friend of John F. Kennedy, a buddy of Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee and the manager of Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

He veered back and forth between politics and journalism seamlessly as an associate publisher of the New York Post, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, vice president and general manager of CBS News and yet remained a fixture in Democratic Party politics throughout his career.

Clark wasn’t the kind of man who would promote Walter Cronkite for the most visible job in journalism because of his press accomplishments alone – and his press accomplishments were noticeably meager.

Cronkite never graduated from college. He had entered the University of Texas at Austin, but left to take a part-time job reporting for the Houston Post. In 1939, he got a job at United Press and covered World War II.

While working for UP, Cronkite was offered a job at CBS by Edward R. Murrow – and turned it down. He finally accepted a second offer in 1950, and stepped into the new medium of television.

He became the host of “You Are There” in which key moments of history were recreated by actors. Cronkite was depicted on camera interviewing “Joan of Arc” or “Sigmund Freud.” But somehow, he managed to make it believable. From that entertainment series, he went on to be named host of “The Morning Show” on CBS, where he was paired with a partner: a puppet named Charlemagne. In 1961, CBS named him the anchor of the “CBS Evening News” – a 15-minute news summary anchored for several years by Douglas Edwards, thanks to prodding from a socialist activist who edited The Nation.

Just a few years later, his commentaries on the Vietnam War were credited with turning the tide of American opinion against that conflict.

“But Walter was always more than just an anchor,” said Barack Obama upon his death. “He was someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world. He was family. He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down. This country has lost an icon and a dear friend, and he will be truly missed.”

After leaving his position with CBS, Cronkite’s political activism and offbeat ideas had no restraints.

In 1989, Cronkite spoke to a dinner organized by People for the American Way, a group founded by Norman Lear. His candid politics surprised even that audience.

“I know liberalism isn’t dead in this country,” he said. “It simply has, temporarily we hope, lost its voice.”

“About the Democratic loss in this election … it was not just a campaign strategy built on a defensive philosophy. It was not just an opposition that conducted one of the most sophisticated and cynical campaigns ever. … It was the fault of too many who found their voices stilled by subtle ideological intimidation.”

“We know that unilateral action in Grenada and Tripoli was wrong. We know that Star Wars means uncontrollable escalation of the arms race. We know that the real threat to democracy is half a nation in poverty. … We know that religious beliefs cannot define patriotism. … God Almighty, we’ve got to shout these truths in which we believe from the housetops. Like that scene in the movie ‘Network,’ we’ve got to throw open our windows and shout these truths to the streets and the heavens. And I bet we’ll find more windows are thrown open to join the chorus than we’d ever dreamed possible.”

In 1999, he appeared at the United Nations to accept the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalists Association. He told those assembled, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, that the first step toward achieving a one-world government – his personal dream – is to strengthen the United Nations.

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace,” he said. “To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order.”

In his acceptance speech, Cronkite added, “Pat Robertson has written in a book a few years ago that we should have a world government, but only when the Messiah arrives. He wrote, literally, any attempt to achieve world order before that time must be the work of the devil. Well, join me. I’m glad to sit here at the right hand of Satan.”

Later, in an interview with the BBC, Cronkite described this new order as something that sounded like a militaristic world dictatorship.

“I wouldn’t give up on the U.N. yet,” he said. “I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law. We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law and the judicial system to bring the criminals to justice before they have the opportunity to build military forces that use these horrid weapons that rogue nations and movements can get hold of – germs and atomic weapons.”

He spoke openly about the need for America to give up its national sovereignty.

“American people are going to begin to realize they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law, and I think that’s going to come to other people as well,” he said. “It’s a fair distance to get there, but we are not ever going to get there unless we keep trying to push ourselves onto the road.”

The other day I came across this statement Cronkite said in accepting the 1999 Norman Cousins Global Governance Award at the ceremony at the United Nations:

“It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government [emphasis mine] patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. That would be a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen.”