Maryland mall shooter was a pothead

The “sweet” young man who killed two people, and then himself, in a Maryland shopping mall on January 25 was a pothead.

But the police revelation that the killer mentions “using marijuana” in a diary has been played down by the media, which in recent months have seemed almost ecstatic about the legalization of the drug in Colorado. President Obama, a one-time heavy user, recently called the drug safer than alcohol.

The link between marijuana and mental illness, documented in the medical literature, is not a popular subject for journalists who themselves may use pot and be reluctant to tell the truth about high potency marijuana and its powerful, psychoactive component.

Just after the murders, the killer, Darion Aguilar, was described in a Washington Post story as a “good kid” with no criminal record who was perceived as “harmless.” His mother called him a “gentle, sweet kid.”

But now the story has dramatically changed.

“Howard County police said on Twitter that Darion Aguilar wrote of using marijuana, expressed ‘thoughts of wanting to die’ and even said he was ‘ready to die,’” reported The Washington Post. But the marijuana reference was buried in the fifth paragraph, even though it helps explain why a “harmless” young man would turn into a psychotic monster.

The police Twitter account reported that Aguilar, in his writings, “indicates he thought he needed a mental health professional, but never told his family. He also mentions using marijuana.”

In Maryland, where the mall killings took place, the Marijuana Policy Project is pushing legal dope. State Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller has endorsed legalization of marijuana and even remarked about taking a “toke” for a toothache.

Less than a week after Aguilar brought a shotgun into the shopping mall in Columbia, Maryland, state police arrested another doper, George Hong Sik Chin, as he threatened employees at the Tumi luggage store in Westfield Montgomery Mall in Bethesda, Maryland. “Police searched his truck and found a small amount of marijuana and a pipe, and drug charges were pending,” The Baltimore Sun reported.

Police said he was wearing camouflage, acting disorderly, and threatening to kill employees of the luggage store. Another account said he was “babbling incoherently.”

Nevertheless, the Marijuana Policy Project, which conducts fundraisers at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles, posted five billboards surrounding the stadium that hosted the Super Bowl on Sunday, claiming that “marijuana is safer than both alcohol and playing professional football.”

This claim echoes statements made by President Obama, a one-time member of the “Choom Gang” in Hawaii, and a heavy user of marijuana.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), during a January 29 Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing of the Justice Department, questioned Attorney General Eric Holder about Obama’s recent statement to The New Yorker that marijuana isn’t more dangerous than alcohol:

Sessions: …did the President make or conduct any medical or scientific survey before he waltzed into The New Yorker and opined, contrary to the position of attorney generals and presidents universally prior to that? That marijuana is not as I’ve quoted him? Did he study any of this data before he made that statement?

Holder: Well, I don’t know, but I think, as I said…

Sessions: Did he consult with you before he made that statement?

Holder: No, we didn’t talk about that.

Sessions: Well, what about this study from the American Medical Association, October of 2013? ‘Heavy (inaudible) use in adolescents causes persistent impairments in neurocognitive performance and I.Q. And use is associated with increased rates of anxiety, mood and psychotic thought disorders,’ close quote. Or this report from Northwestern University in December—last December. Quote: ‘The study found that marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory, and that chronic marijuana use may lead to brain changes resembling schizophrenia. The study also reported that the younger the person starts using marijuana, the worst the effect.’ Would you dispute those reports?

Holder: I have not read the reports, but I don’t—if they are—if they are, in fact, from the AMA, I’m sure they are good reports. But that is exactly why one of our eight enforcement priorities is the prevention of marijuana to minors.

Sessions: Well, Lady Gaga said she’s addicted to it, and it is not harmless. She’s been addicted to it. Patrick Kennedy—former Congressman Kennedy—said the President is wrong on this subject. I just think it’s a huge issue. I hope that you will talk with the President—you’re close to him—and begin to push back—pull back from this position that I think is going to be adverse to the health of America.

Liberal commentators laughed at Senator Sessions’ reference to Lady Gaga being addicted to marijuana, but in fact she said she was “smoking up to 15-20 marijuana cigarettes a day,” allegedly to deal with various ailments. She has been a longtime Obama supporter.

Pope continues crusade for world government

Glenn Beck recently said that he was inundated with messages from people concerned about an Obama executive order giving special rights to the international police organization known as Interpol. But what about the global campaign by the Vatican to establish a “World Political Authority” with “teeth.” Don’t look for Beck, O’Reilly or anybody else in the media to take on Pope Benedict XVI. It is just too controversial. Commentators who question the Vatican run the risk of being labeled anti-Catholic bigots.

Many Catholics, especially of a conservative persuasion, are embarrassed and troubled by what is happening inside their church. But they are mostly reluctant to say anything publicly. The facts, however, speak for themselves, and they are available on the Vatican’s own website in the actual words and statements being uttered by the Pope.

Consider, for example, Pope Benedict’s passionate embrace of the radical environmental movement. The Washington Times on Tuesday ran a front-page photo of the Pope greeting ambassadors to the Vatican during his new year’s address to the diplomatic corps. “The Pope denounced the failure of world leaders to agree on a climate change treaty last month,” the caption said. It’s true. Despite the Climategate scandal that has thrown the man-made global warming theory into disrepute, the Pope is still a believer in the discredited claims being made about the role of man in creating a hotter planet and he is trying to force world leaders to embrace and act on them.

Acting more like a politician than a religious leader, the pope complained about the failure at the Copenhagen conference to come up with a new treaty to punish Western nations, led by the United States, that have used fossil fuels for industrial development. Referring to “the growing concern caused by economic and political resistance to combating the degradation of the environment,” he said, “This problem was evident even recently, during the XV Session of the Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December last. I trust that in the course of this year, first in Bonn and later in Mexico City, it will be possible to reach an agreement for effectively dealing with this question. The issue is all the more important in that the very future of some nations is at stake, particularly some island states.”

The Pope, therefore, is going to use his influence to get a treaty written, passed, and imposed on the world.

The Pope went on to embrace other aspects of the global “progressive” agenda, endorsing the holding of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York in May, so that “concrete decisions will be made towards progressive disarmament, with a view to freeing our planet from nuclear arms.” This is Obama’s goal as well.

Zero nuclear weapons sounds good in theory, but what does it mean, practically speaking, when the world is confronted by a fanatical regime in Iran determined to acquire them? All that the Pope said about this was, “Concerning Iran, I express my hope that through dialogue and cooperation joint solutions will be found on the national as well as the international level.” Not even President Obama treats the Iranian problem with such platitudes. Obama at least talks about sanctions against Iran.

In reality, the Pope’s recipe for a nuclear-free world means appeasement of Iran, its acquisition of nuclear weapons, and a more dangerous world with more nuclear weapons.

Strangely, the Pope called for a new global warming treaty but admitted that centralized planning to “save” the environment hasn’t worked on the national level. He said, “Twenty years ago, after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the materialistic and atheistic regimes which had for several decades dominated a part of this continent, was it not easy to assess the great harm which an economic system lacking any reference to the truth about man had done not only to the dignity and freedom of individuals and peoples, but to nature itself, by polluting soil, water and air?”

The Pope was admitting that a communist-style economic system was not only a threat to man but the environment. Yet, he now wants the United Nations to play a central role in policing a new global agreement on the environment and disarming the nations of the world. As dangerous as this may sound, this objective is consistent with his endorsement of a “World Political Authority,” a key recommendation from his Caritas in Veritate encyclical.

In that controversial document, the Pope explained that a “World Political Authority” was necessary in order to “manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration…”

 

These shocking statements in favor of what is clearly a world government immediately followed the Pope’s recommendation that, in the face of the “unrelenting growth of global interdependence,” the United Nations must be reformed so that “the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.”

So the Pope wants a strengthened United Nations to constitute a “World Political Authority” that will have the “teeth” to enforce its will on the nations of the world? Will somebody in the media explain why this is not global tyranny? This makes the controversy over Interpol look like peanuts.

Of course, few in the media want to bring up this sensitive subject. After all, the Pope is a religious leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, with 63 million of them here in the U.S. But it’s precisely because the Catholic Church is the largest religious body in America that the statements of its leader deserve media scrutiny.

Before he spoke to the diplomats, on the occasion of the World Day of Peace, the Pope issued a January 1, 2010 statement based on the theme, “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.” Again, sounding like Al Gore or Barack Obama, the Pope said that “the threats arising from the neglect―if not downright misuse―of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us” were as troubling as “wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights.”

The Pope reiterated that the campaign to pass a new global warming treaty should be part of a broader campaign to remake the global economy. “It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development itself and our understanding of man in his relationship to others and to the rest of creation,” he said. “Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world.” (emphasis in the original)

Is all of this flowery rhetoric designed to usher in a new socialist international order? Is this what he means by changing the “model of development?”

One problem is that the Pope gives fewer news conferences than Obama. In fact, he gives none. So who in the media has the courage to hold the Vatican accountable for its campaign to help Obama usher us into a New World Order on the basis of nonsense about the environment and nuclear weapons?

The terrible truth about Walter Cronkite

It is wrong to speak ill of the dead. On the other hand, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to pretend that Walter Cronkite was the “voice of God” and “universally credible,” as Mara Liasson put it on Fox News Sunday. The terrible truth is that Walter Cronkite symbolized liberal media bias and used that bias with disastrous consequences for our nation and the world. His latest cause was world government and the destruction of American sovereignty.

We found out after his retirement that he was not only a liberal, which was evident from his broadcasts, but a one-worlder. In appearances before the World Federalist Association, which favors world government financed by global taxes, he called for the U.S. to renounce “some of its sovereignty” and pass a series of United Nations treaties―many of which are now being pushed in the Senate by President Barack Obama. Cronkite called for an “international Liberty Bell.”

He called for Senate ratification of the Treaty to Ban Land Mines, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Most important, he said, we should sign and ratify the Treaty for a Permanent International Criminal Court, which would violate U.S. constitutional rights by enabling foreign judges to prosecute American citizens and imprison them in foreign jails. Cronkite was determined to use the U.N. and its treaties to inhibit the ability of the U.S. to act in its own national security interests.

One of Cronkite’s appearances, where he accepted a “Global Governance” award, is available on video, at an event which featured the wife of then-U.N. boss Kofi Annan and a video from then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. The same “Global Governance” award had also been given to former Time magazine columnist Strobe Talbott, another advocate of world government, later a top State Department official in the Clinton Administration and subsequently named as a “special contact” of the Russian intelligence service by a Russian spy. Talbott now runs the liberal Brookings Institution.

In 1988, seven years after his retirement as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, Cronkite addressed a left-wing People for the American Way conference and denounced President Reagan for the “unilateral” military actions in Grenada, when the U.S. military evicted a communist gang, and Libya, when Reagan ordered a military strike in retaliation for the acts of terrorism against Americans. Cronkite despised Reagan’s peace-through-strength policies and said that the smartest president he ever met was Jimmy Carter.

Later, Cronkite denounced Operation Iraqi Freedom and attacked the Bush administration for its “arrogance.”

His role in the Vietnam defeat is being reported as if it were a highlight of his career. Yet, his misreporting helped create the conditions for a premature U.S. military withdrawal, leading to the loss of the lives of 58,000 Americans in vain, not to mention the millions of additional deaths caused in Vietnam and Cambodia by the Communists. Cronkite’s public verdict that the 1968 Tet offensive was a “defeat” for the U.S. is widely seen as a turning point in American support for the war. Cronkite falsely claimed that the Vietcong had held the American embassy for six hours and that the offensive “went on for two months.” The facts show that Tet was actually a major defeat for the communist enemy.

Accuracy in Media founder and longtime AIM Report editor Reed Irvine noted that Cronkite “contributed a great deal to our defeat in Vietnam.”

Beyond Vietnam, Cronkite got it wrong on one of the big issues―freedom versus Soviet communism. In the 1974 book, TV and National Defense, Dr. Ernest Lefever examined how CBS News programs for two years had covered national security issues and concluded that the news organization was “an active advocate of several national defense positions which were frequently critical of U.S. policy, and usually from a perspective that implied or called for a lesser military commitment and lower defense expenditures.”

In 1972, for instance, the CBS Evening News aired nearly 1,400 presentations supporting the dovish view. Contrary or hawkish positions were aired only 79 times.

Asked about the charges, Cronkite displayed the bias that guided his news program, saying that “There are always groups in Washington expressing views of alarm over the state of our defenses. We don’t carry those stories. The story is that there are those who want to cut defense spending.” The “most trusted man in America” didn’t deserve our trust.

In 1979, he gave an interview to the Soviet magazine, Literary Gazette, and told Vitaly Kobysh that the “Soviet threat” was “most likely…a myth.” According to the magazine, Cronkite went on to say that “I will never believe in a ‘Soviet threat.’”

Shortly after the interview was published, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He retired as CBS Evening News anchorman in 1981.

Cronkite told AIM founder and editor Reed Irvine that he had been misquoted by Kobysh, and that he had a tape recording of the interview to prove it. The tape never materialized. Irvine ran into Kobysh at an international media conference and the Soviet journalist said the interview was entirely accurate.

After Ronald Reagan took office as President and proceeded to build up U.S. national defense capability, in the wake of the disastrous Jimmy Carter years, CBS News acted to counter the Reagan effort. They aired a five-part program, “The Defense of the United States,” in which Cronkite appeared to tell us that the relationship with the Soviet Union was dominated by “the same old fears and doubts” because we didn’t have a genuine dialogue with the Soviet communists.

Irvine noted at the time of the broadcast that CBS gave us “the Kremlin view that it is the United States, not the Soviet Union, that is striving for an impossible military superiority, while creating fantasies about Soviet aggression.”

However, Irvine noted that Reagan “was not deterred” by the CBS News assault, but that the momentum behind his election mandate to rebuild America’s defense was “weakened” somewhat by the constant repetition by the media that he was spending too much on national security. Cronkite’s accomplices in this crusade included Dan Rather, his successor, and Bill Moyers, then with CBS and now with public television.

For many years Irvine drew attention to the “persistent anti-defense bias of CBS News” and reported, “One has to wonder why the anti-defense bias is so strong and persistent at CBS. My own feeling is that it is a reflection of the views enunciated by Walter Cronkite that show a benign view of the Soviet Union.”

In 1989, while expressing the hope that the Soviet archives would one day be opened to demonstrate how the Kremlin manipulated American journalists such as Walter Duranty of the New York Times, who had lied and helped Stalin cover up his monstrous crimes that resulted in the deaths of 7-10 million Ukrainians, Irvine added that “It will be fascinating to see what they say about Walter Cronkite, who spent two years in Moscow after World War II as a UPI correspondent and who has been remarkably restrained in his criticism of that country ever since.”

This may sound harsh, but the fact is that Cronkite was consistently wrong about Soviet intentions, and his attitude dominated CBS News coverage of the old Soviet Union.

After the Soviet collapse, Irvine wrote a 1990 AIM Report about those personalities who had taken “a benign or even adulatory view of communism and the Soviet Union in the years since the 1917 Bolshevik coup d’etat.” Cronkite was on this list of “doves,” which also included “Hanoi Jane” Fonda.

It is fine to recognize Cronkite for his long life and many years as anchorman of the CBS Evening News. He captured important moments and reached millions. But don’t pretend that he was an objective journalist.

Cronkite’s journalism cost lives and could have cost many more, had it not been for a President named Reagan who had the courage to bypass the major media and go directly to the American people with the truth about our crumbling defenses when America was increasingly vulnerable.

“The country was very lucky to have him in that seat” as anchorman, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace said, in paying tribute. No. America was fortunate to have escaped his pernicious influence. Now we have to try to escape the fate of world government that Cronkite made his primary cause later in life, which has been adopted by President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI.

Stacking the debate in favor of Giuliani

The popularity of presidential candidates in opinion polls at this stage of the campaign is almost completely a function of name-recognition or how much media coverage they have already received or purchased from the liberal media. Yet that is one of the unfair criteria that Fox News will use to select the Republican presidential candidates for a May 15 debate in South Carolina.

The arrangement could prevent a true conservative from emerging as a “serious candidate” in the GOP. It may also be designed to help frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, labeled a fake conservative by Terence P. Jeffrey of Human Events, get a virtual lock on the Republican presidential nomination.

Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of News Corporation, the Fox News parent company, has close ties to Giuliani. Murdoch’s New York Post supported Giuliani’s candidacy for mayor of New York and Giuliani worked tirelessly to get carriage on the Time Warner cable system for Fox News. The New York Daily News obtained a 140-page campaign plan outlining Giuliani’s 2008 strategy for becoming president and it named Murdoch as one of his likely supporters. Donna Hanover Giuliani, one of Giuliani’s two ex-wives, worked for a television station owned by Murdoch.

One might think that the early Republican presidential debates would be designed to let Republican voters see and hear all of the registered and declared candidates. A May 3 debate, sponsored by MSNBC, the Reagan Library and Politico.com, will include 10 Republicans: Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Tommy Thompson.

But the Fox News-sponsored debate on May 15 could exclude several of these candidates, on the grounds that because they don’t register high enough in the polls they are not “serious” candidates. Such a process is blatantly unfair, this early in the campaign, to those who have not benefited from favorable media attention and big business support. Some of the candidates are clearly counting on the debates to raise their standing in the polls and win Republican voters. But Fox News wants to deny them that opportunity to reach voters.

“Fox to Help Pick GOP Debate Participants” was the astonishing headline over an Associated Press article appearing on the Fox News website about the South Carolina debate. It began: “State Party chairman Katon Dawson and a spokesman for the news channel said Thursday that they had agreed on a criteria, including polling numbers, for choosing which of the 10 GOP candidates will take part in the May 15 debate.” It quoted Marty Ryan, executive producer of political programming for Fox News Channel, as saying that the polling criteria would ensure that “serious candidates were taking part in our debate.” But why should a news organization be in the position of deciding who is serious? Shouldn’t the voters make that decision after getting a full and fair opportunity to hear their views?

Reports indicate that the candidates will have to register at one percent in various polls before being invited to the debate. But as the AP story noted, “In a variety of national and state polls, seven of the 10 candidates hover around one percent or less.” Four candidates—Hunter, Tancredo, Paul, and Brownback—are at one percent in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. But it’s not clear this poll will be used to select the debate participants. The three top GOP candidates in the poll who stand to benefit the most from the Fox News decision are Giuliani (at 39 percent in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll), McCain (24 percent) and Romney (12 percent).

Former Republican governor Jim Gilmore, who denounces the three Republican frontrunners by saying that “Rudy McRomney is not a conservative and he knows he is not a conservative,” doesn’t register at one percent and would be excluded.

Obviously, the Fox News debate criteria benefit Giuliani, who became a household name after 9/11; McCain, a media favorite for most of his career; and Romney, a former Massachusetts governor with a famous name who recently attracted national media attention for raising large amounts of campaign cash. But none of these candidates has a solid conservative record. Debates with conservative candidates could make this crystal clear and undermine the standing of the frontrunners in the polls. Why should Fox News be able to decide that Gilmore will not be permitted to participate in the debate and make his argument that the three frontrunners are not sufficiently conservative?

This is a form of censorship that should not be permitted. It is shocking that a news channel should be attempting to stifle debate.

Although Fox News is supposed to be the conservative channel, its decision to narrow the field means that, depending on the polls they use, conservatives such as Brownback, Gilmore, Huckabee, Hunter, Paul and Tancredo could all be excluded from the debate. Under the criteria at this point, only Giuliani, McCain and Romney seem assured of participating. That is a decision that harms the more conservative candidates, and Fox News has to know it.

There is still time, however, for conservatives to put pressure on the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News to open up the process to the official and declared candidates. The South Carolina Republican Party is ultimately responsible and can be reached at 803-988-8440. For their part, candidates such as Giuliani, McCain and Romney should insist on the other candidates being included. That is, unless they want to be part of a process rigged by Fox News in their favor.

Fox News is usually a punching bag for those on the Democratic side, who claim that it has a conservative bias. Most of that rhetoric is bluff and bluster, designed to move the channel further to the left. This is the network, after all, which employs Wesley Clark and Harold Ford, Jr. as paid analysts and commentators and featured Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as a correspondent on a one-sided program about global warming. Murdoch contributed financially to Hillary Clinton’s senate campaign and his New York Post newspaper endorsed her over a conservative Republican opponent.

Conservatives should be asking why this private news channel, whose parent company is staffed primarily by executives committed to Hillary Clinton, should have any role in picking the “serious” Republican candidates. Before the debate, which will be moderated by Fox News anchor Brit Hume, the South Carolina GOP will host its 2007 Silver Elephant Dinner featuring Fox News personality Sean Hannity. On May 19, more than 1,600 delegates will gather for the South Carolina Republican State Convention. You can bet Fox News will cover it, ready to proclaim and honor the most “serious” candidate to come out of the debate and proclaiming him the likely GOP standard-bearer. This will be a fiasco if Fox succeeds in excluding serious conservative Republican candidates.

Indeed, if the more conservative candidates are excluded from this debate, the odds increase that Giuliani, an advocate of abortion on demand and same-sex unions, will emerge from the debate and perhaps this southern state convention as the inevitable GOP presidential candidate. It may be impossible to stop him at that point.

If candidates like Tancredo, Hunter and Paul are excluded from the Fox News-sponsored South Carolina debate, the chances are greatly reduced that we will see Giuliani challenged about his liberal views on border control issues, particularly his commitment to a so-called “technological fence,” not a physical barrier, on our border with Mexico. Giuliani’s position, as outlined during a discussion with Sean Hannity on Fox News, was that “We need to be able to photograph people, observe them, see them, know who’s there, record them.” Whatever his intention and plan, it doesn’t look like a process designed to stop illegal aliens from getting into the U.S. Indeed, Giuliani says that we need “regularization for the people [illegal aliens] that are here.”

Asked if that meant amnesty, Giuliani replied, “It doesn’t mean amnesty. It means earning it.”

Commenting on this answer, Giuliani critic Terence Jeffrey said, “That’s George W. Bush-talk for: Yes, it does mean amnesty.”

The attempted coronation of Giuliani as the Republican presidential candidate, by stacking the South Carolina debate in his favor, is an abuse of media power. The South Carolina Republican Party has made a critical mistake in turning over the process to the cable channel.

If Republican conservatives want to take their country back, they better start by taking their presidential debate process out of the hands of a cable channel whose reputation as a “conservative” alternative to the liberal media is now seriously in doubt.