LiveStream: Heartland’s 7th International Conference on Climate Change Mon-Wed

Gulag Bound

Gulag Bulletin – See: America’s Most Critical Political Issue: Sovereignty

Watch live streaming video from heartlandinstitute at livestream.com

Schedule, Monday 5/21 – Wednesday 5/23:

Schedule for ICCC-7

From their site about the event:

Join Us

The Heartland Institute’s Seventh International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7) will take place in Chicago, Illinois from Monday, May 21 to Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at the Hilton Chicago Hotel, 720 South Michigan Avenue. The event will follow the NATO Summit taking place in Chicago on May 19–21.

We hope you can attend.

The previous ICCC to take place in Chicago, ICCC-4 in 2010, attracted nearly 800 scientists, policy experts, elected officials, journalists, and other guests. We expect another large turn-out due to recent developments in the international debate over climate change, a line-up of outstanding speakers, and the global focus on Chicago due to the NATO Summit.

This conference is open to the public. Register to attend this event by visiting the conference sign-up form. Reporters, bloggers and documentary filmmakers may request credentials at the media sign-up form. Federal, state, and local elected officials may attend for free by contacting John Nothdurft at 312/377-4000 or [email protected].

Real Science, Real Choices

This year’s theme is “Real Science, Real Choices.” Our goal is to feature approximately 60 scientists and policy experts speaking at plenary sessions and on three tracks of concurrent panel sessions exploring what real climate science is telling us about the causes and consequences of climate change, and the real consequences of choices being made based on the current perceptions of the state of climate science.

Major developments on the science front since the last ICCC took place include publication of a new report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) updating its 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered, and a new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on climate change and extreme weather events.

The past year was marked by major retreats in the U.S. and other developing nations from government subsidies and investments in solar and wind power. The widely publicized bankruptcies of companies including Solar Trust of America and Solyndra, and slow economic growth and fiscal crises afflicting many European countries, have forced policymakers around the world to reconsider the costs and consequences of basing energy choices on fear of man-made global warming.

Climategate and Fakegate

On November 22, 2011, a second batch of emails among scientists working at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit was released by an unknown whistle-blower. “Climategate II” revealed prominent scientists concealing data, discussing global warming as a political cause rather than a balanced scientific inquiry, and admitting to scientific uncertainties that they denied in their public statements.

Like an earlier release of emails on November 19, 2009, on the eve of the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Climategate II caused an uproar in the scientific community and a further drop in public belief in man-made global warming. But a series of friendly investigations of the Climategate affair, along with the timely expiration of the statute of limitations for the offense of failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests, spared the scientists involved from any legal penalties.

On February 20, 2012, another global warming scandal broke, this one involving criminal behavior that is likely to be much more difficult to cover up. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute and an elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, confessed to using fraud to obtain confidential corporate documents from The Heartland Institute and arranging for them to be posted online. The scandal became known as Fakegate because Gleick also circulated a fake memo he claimed outlined Heartland’s “climate strategy.”

In his confession, Gleick said “a rational public debate is desperately needed.” We agree, which is why we have repeatedly invited scientists with wide-ranging views to speak at these conferences. Indeed, we even invited Peter Gleick to speak at a Heartland event, an invitation he turned down on the very day he began his fraud.


Scores of think tanks, trade associations, and advocacy groups have been invited to cosponsor this year’s ICCC, in order to help supply speakers and promote the event to their members and supporters. They will be announced on this site as they sign up and will be listed in the program for the event.

Sponsors of previous ICCCs include: Americans for Tax Reform, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, Science and Environmental Policy Project, and Science and Public Policy Institute.

New this year is sponsorship opportunities for meals and receptions during the conference. For more information, please visit the Cosponsor page on this site.


The Royal Side of the Fascism Behind Agenda 21

Gulag Bound

Gulag Bulletin

See: America’s Most Critical Political Issue: Sovereignty

Also: LiveStream: Heartland’s 7th International Conference on Climate Change Mon-Wed


William Kay has contributed previously in the Gulag. He is a student of the Old European-side roots of the ecofascist movement, which has, collaborating with their Marxist cousins, given us the Agenda 21 strategy for the destruction of popular and national sovereignty and with it, Western Civilization – all in the name of environmentalism.

One should note that Kay tends to refer to Old Europe’s right-left paradigm, perhaps best defined in the French Revolution and onward, of aristocrats on the right and Jacobins/Marxists on the left, each competing for their own brands of authoritarianism. That is distinct from our American view, of the authoritarian Marxists on the left and devotees of the republican social contract of sovereign Citizens on the right. The Old European right-left paradigm is much like the Marxian view, except the Marxists have no regard for the Natural Law responsibilities of free moral agents accountable to God, and thus they bundle us patriots in with the those of the aristocrats they cannot swing their way, into the bourgeoisie, as they may prefer to say.

And as history has approached the present, a dynamic has been playing out, which is perhaps, the worst dynamic of all, for America. Recently, the world’s Marxists, aided by the draw of the money of the central bank complex, have been making Hegel-synthetic friends with their fellow authoritarians, the old money nobles, meeting at a neo-Marxism (or communitarianism, or transnational progressivism, whatever term one chooses) which is essentially a globalist version of socioeconomic fascism (though they still rankle at being exposed doing so, like orcs in the sunlight).

“Sophistry” is a defining word, in a description of Marxism and its Hegelian relatives. How they are able to achieve this level of sophistry may seem confusing to us and to them, but we suggest paying attention to William Kay’s and Mark Musser’s historic explanations – as always, following the money. As we do, we see yet another, more consistent and telling paradigm, the distinction made by our Sovereign Creator, between those who serve God and those who serve mammon (money/materialism).


Another important article which blows the cover off the myth of the egalitarian ideals of Marxist leaders, to expose their perverse entrepreneurship as well as personal ambition, is James Simpson’s “Conspiracy of the Lemmings: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis; Part III.” And runners with the Bound may note that Lord Christopher Monkton has also recently referred to the desires of the plutocratic “right” (on America’s left – whew) to draw back the populations of the world (think about that) to make it easier to reign and more exciting to safari.

For the test bed of what now promises to do us in, by a threat to America even greater than that of the Axis Powers, we go once again… to NAZI Germany.

Call that an extended preface to an extensive review by Mr. Kay, of the the 544 explicative page book, Royals and the Reich, by Professor Jonathan Petropoulos, Ph.D., of Claremont McKenna College, in California. We add only two graphic images, the second, poignantly at a fascist funeral. – AW

Nazi swastika green background

Flag for sale at micetrap.net


William Walter Kay
Environmentalism is Fascism

Petropoulos’ Royals and the Reich



The German Aristocracy 1917-1935
The Hessens
Prince Christoph von Hessen
Prince Philipp von Hessen
Other Nazi Princes
The Plebeians
The Aristocrat-Nazi Clash
Unity in the English Garden
After 1945


An important feature environmentalism shares with fascism is the centrality, within each movement, of the European aristocracy. However, while aristocrats flaunt their environmental credentials, they conceal their past involvement with fascism. This is why Jonathon Petropoulos’ Royals and the Reich (Oxford, 2006) is so useful.


270 German princes and princesses were Nazi Party members. A sampling of 312 “old aristocratic” families found 3,592 Party members. Every noble family east of the Elbe River had at least one member in the Party. A third of Nazi-aristocrats joined the Party before Hitler became Chancellor; a majority supported the Nazis, or like groups, before this date. Nobles were the most fascistic of any demographically identifiable cohort.

Royal Hohenzollern princes were high-profile Nazi campaigners during the Nazis’ struggle for power.

Aristocrats occupied thousands of top government posts during the Third Reich.

King Edward VIII was a Nazi. He was definitely guilty of treason and possibly guilty of attempted regicide. Edward did not abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. He was forced from the throne by PM Baldwin because Edward was heading up a Nazi fifth column in the UK.

George V, George VI, the Duke of Kent and scores of British aristocrats promoted “appeasement.” This “peace movement” was an effort to steer Britain into the Axis.

Western Europe’s aristocracy, including most German princes, survived World War II. They retained, even supplemented, their land holdings. Over the past few decades they have engineered a remarkable renaissance.


Topping the list of individuals and institutions Petropoulos thanks for helping him write Royals and the Reich are: the House of Hesse, Queen Elizabeth II, and the Duke of Edinburgh. He also acknowledges support from: John and Kingsley Croul, Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Cambridge University and Oxford University Press.

Continue reading


Hunger Games Reflected part 1: What’s so Good about Evil?

Gulag Bound
Berit Kjos

The first of Ms. Kjos’ series in review of the books and movie, Hunger Games

Amazon Customer Reviews:

“Wow! I was barely able to put this book down for a second after the first few pages got me completely hooked…. It’s entertaining, and incredibly disturbing all at once. … The storyline is brutal. …it’s probably one of the most terrifying books I’ve read in a very long time!” Michael A. Behr

“It took me a while to get to this book because I never saw it out of my two daughters’ hands. They devoured it!” Jay R. Chase

“…reading it gave me a horribly familiar feeling. There is a certain strain of book that can hypnotize you into believing that you are in another time and place…” E. R. Bird

“They… walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart,
and went backward and not forward.”

– Jeremiah 7:24

The setting for this trendy teenage tale is an oppressive nation called Panem that occupies what once was America. From its well protected Capitol, it controls its 12 regional Districts using sophisticated surveillance and communication technology.

The main character, sixteen-year-old Katniss, lives with her mother and twelve-year-old sister, Prim, in District 12, the poorest in the land. Since her father died in a coal-mine disaster, Katniss has been the family’s sole provider. Day after day, she and her friend Gale hunt rabbits and gather herbs and berries on forbidden government land.

As George Orwell and our globalist leaders knew well, common enemies and celebrations inspire solidarity. The rulers of Panem seem to agree. Their catalyst for oneness is the annual “Hunger Games,” which bear an ominous resemblance to the deadly but popular battles in the ancient Roman Coliseum.

Each of the 12 Districts must offer a yearly contribution to the Capitol in the form of two chosen “Tributes”: a boy and a girl (ages twelve through eighteen). According to standard government rules, those twenty-four Tributes will kill each other until only one is left. And while the teenagers fight for their lives, the eyes of every household across the land are glued to the televised battlegrounds. That’s the law.

Somehow the Capitol is able to film every dramatic scene. The agonizing fear of the hunted, the cruel plots of the strong, the miserable hiding places, the horrible injuries, the freezing night-time temperature, the manufactured rain… everything is visible to the families across the land. Their tears or cheers would depend on the fate of their own two Tributes — and on the success of the pre-game promotion of popular contenders.

The Tributes are chosen through a lottery. In District 12, the lot falls on sweet little Prim, who screams out in terror. So big sister Katniss rushes forward to take her place.

Perhaps the author was inspired by the old Greek myth about Theseus, son of the sea god Poseidon. You may remember the story. A monstrous Minotaur inhabits a labyrinth under the magnificent palace of King Minos. Half man and half bull, it feeds only on human flesh. Periodically, seven maidens and seven young men were sacrificed to the menacing beast.

In this myth, the mighty Theseus arrives just in time for the human sacrifice. He offers to take the place of one of the young victims. Not wanting Theseus to die, the daughter of King Minos gives him a magic ball of thread that would guide him through the maze of the labyrinth. He finds the beast surrounded by skulls and bones and kills it.

Let’s compare that myth with the courage of the lowly but faithful David, the shepherd boy who became king. When the giant Goliath threatened the nation and challenged Saul’s soldiers to fight him, they trembled in their boots. Neither myth nor God’s Truth could arouse them to try. So the young boy volunteered — and won! Why?

Not because he was strong and clever, but because — in his weakness — he trusted His sovereign Lord. He knew that “with God all things are possible.” (Mark 10:27)

Commanded to Kill

The Tributes are brought to the Capitol for a week of training, grooming and publicity. After all, the success of the games demands heroes and heroines. Building the needed familiarity involves pre-battle promotion for each team. In glittering outfits and bathed in artificial flames, Katniss and her partner — presented as lovers — win praise from across the nation.

Their next stop (the final one for most) is this year’s chosen wilderness. Unlike the more compassionate Peeta, Katniss is focused on personal survival. She trusts no one! After all, no one is safe until all others are killed. That rule would change before the games are over, but not yet. Not until nearly all are dead.

After hiding in the forest, desperately searching for water, escaping deadly bugs, surviving horrible injuries, and killing human foes, Katniss is back at the starting point with two other survivors: Peeta and their shrewd arch-foe Cato. Injured and desperate, all three face a new, unexpected threat: twenty-one murderous wolf-like “mutant” beasts — part animal and part human. As Katniss observes,

“Cato lies on his side at the very top of the horn, twenty feet above the ground, gasping to catch his breath…. Now’s my chance to finish him off. I stop midway up the horn and load another arrow, but just as I’m about to let it fly, I hear Peeta cry out. …the mutts are right on his heels. ‘Climb!’ I yell….

“The mutts are beginning to assemble. As they join together, they raise up again to stand easily on their back legs giving them an eerily human quality. Each has a thick coat, some with fur that… vary from jet black to what I can only describe as blond. There’s something else about them, something that makes the hair rise up on the back of my neck…

“Then one of them…with silky waves of blond fur takes a running start and leaps onto the horn. Its back legs must be incredibly powerful because it lands a mere ten feet below us, its pink lips pulled back in a snarl. For a moment it hangs there, and in that moment I realize what else unsettled me about the mutts. The green eyes glowering at me are unlike any dog or wolf, any canine I’ve ever seen. They are unmistakably human. … The blonde hair, the green eyes, the number … it’s Glimmer [one of the dead Tributes]. I fire into its throat. Its body twitches and flops onto the ground… [His second death?]

“…I examine the pack, taking in the various sizes and colors. The small one with the red coat and amber eyes… Foxface! And there, the ashen hair and hazel eyes of the boy from District 9 who died as we struggled for the backpack! And worst of all, the smallest mutt, with dark glossy fur, huge brown eyes…. Teeth bared in hatred. Rue! [She was a sweet, twelve-year-old girl before she was killed]…

“Have they been programmed to hate our faces particularly because we have survived and they were so callously murdered? And the ones we actually killed… do they believe they’re avenging their own deaths?”

No answers were given. But the realms of myth, imagination and occultism have their own ways of making mysterious manifestations and mystical reincarnations seem plausible for the moment. (That moment is usually long enough to plant disturbing suggestions in the minds of the readers.)

Many of today’s most shocking images reflect the occult myths and practices behind shamanism, Hinduism, sorcery, witchcraft and Native American traditions. Others mystical changes are crafted through sophisticated technology. Made to stir excitement and feed emotions, they all clash with Christianity. Consider these warnings:

“There shall not be found among you anyone who… practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord…”
– Deuteronomy 18:10-12

“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.”
– Ephesians 5:11

We shouldn’t be surprised by such stark contradictions to America’s founding beliefs and values. After all, The Hunger Games fits into a dark world that supposedly replaced our own increasingly corrupt land. With today’s delight in digital deceptions and mind-changing stimuli, our former free and moral nation may well fade away, swallowed up by a dictatorship that could encompass the world.

The Better Way

You read the comments near the top. Why were the readers so enthralled? What kinds of values did they find so captivating? Why do they “feel good” about a futuristic culture that turns mass murder into entertaining games? Let me guess:

  • The captivating killing fields?
  • The strong, self-confident heroine?
  • The sensual, shimmering, fiery costumes in the opening ceremony?
  • The mandatory romance that titillated Panem’s nation-wide audience?
  • The reincarnated Tributes whose dead bodies revive and return as snarling wolf-like predators?

All these themes and fantasies fit our times. They stir curiosities that can’t easily be quenched. They spread corrupt values that guide future behavior and preferences. They dull our children’s desire for God’s truth and ways.

Through schools and entertainment, their minds have already been attuned to a culture of myth, violence, sensual thrills and feminist superiority. Biblical truth is incompatible with mind-changing messages that bombard them from the Internet, computer games, peers and books. Following the crowd becomes natural; following God is not.

Yet, for our children today, the only safe place is with God — hidden in Him, walking with Him, and wearing His armor. We need to pray for them — asking God to shelter them in His love and fill them with His Spirit, so that they too can know Him and love His Word.

“O our God… we have no power against this great multitude that is coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are upon You.”
– 2 Chronicles 20:12

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”
– Ephesians 6:10-13

“Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. ”
– Romans 8:37


New Poll: End of Gender Gap or Proof of Credibility Gap?

By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media

The Obama campaign is complaining about the latest New York Times/CBS poll, because of its “methodology.” Their real complaint, however, is with the results. Whereas in April, the poll showed that in a general election match-up between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Obama was ahead among women voters by 49% – 43%, now, in the latest poll, Romney is ahead among women by 46% – 44%, which is within the three-point margin of error, but represents an eight-point swing in one month. After the Sandra Fluke/contraception issue, and the whole “GOP war on women” theme pushed by Obama and his media allies, these numbers seemed surprising. But, in fact, they indicate that a majority of women aren’t buying it.

The part of the poll that upset the Obama campaign even more was the percentage of those polled who believe that Obama made his decision to announce his support for gay marriage for political reasons. That number was 67% versus only 24% who said they believe he did it “mostly because he thinks it is right.” That is hugely significant, and it is a gap, a credibility gap, that reverberates throughout the Obama administration.

The White House’s reliable mouthpiece, Chuck Todd, of MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown,” said that the poll was “a callback survey, not a traditional poll.” This point was also made by Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter, in an interview with Todd. She questioned the methodology. Yet this same poll matched its highest approval rating for Obama in more than two years, 50%, except for a bump he got after the death of Osama bin Laden in May of last year.

The irony is that this poll, like so many others, is skewed to favor Obama. Of those interviewed, 27% generally considered themselves Republican, 35% considered themselves Democrats, and 34% considered themselves independent. And most do not agree with Obama that the economy is getting better. In fact, 63% believe it’s getting worse or is not getting better, and only 36% believe it’s getting better, which is actually an improvement for Obama. By a 46% to 43% margin, they would vote for Romney over Obama if the election were held now. And this is a group in which 45% have a favorable opinion of Obama, while only 31% have the same feeling about Romney. It goes without saying that polls are a snapshot in time, and will certainly move in both directions in the months leading up to the election. And there are other polls showing Obama with a double-digit lead in the gender gap. But this is significant because it comes at a time when the Obama campaign has ramped up, and made a strong push to win over women voters. The media have clearly carried their message for them.

Obama’s Evolution Toward Gay Marriage

It has been obvious for a long time that Obama, despite his public statements to the contrary, did not oppose gay marriage. But now John Heilemann, the liberal columnist writing in New York magazine, has confirmed the extent of the duplicity. According to Heilemann, “Barack Obama knew the ludicrous pretense that his views on the issue were ‘evolving’ was living on borrowed time. Surely some reporter would ask soon enough if Obama would have signed the bill were he in Cuomo’s loafers. The president informed his senior advisers that the answer was yes (duh). And thus, the only question was whether to endorse gay marriage publicly before Election Day or try to stall until thereafter. After months of internal deliberations, Obama rendered his decision early this year. ‘He was clear,’ a top White House official tells me. ‘He said, ‘If I get the question, I’m gonna have to answer it, and if I don’t, we gotta figure out the best way to do it [before November 6].’”

As a matter of fact, when they were asked about it back in late March by Greg Sargent of The Washington Post, the answer from the administration was that “The President and the President alone will come to a decision.” He obviously didn’t feel the need at that time, as Heilemann suggested, to come clean.

So for the past year, Obama now claims, he has known he was going to make the announcement that his evolution on this issue was complete. But while saying he now supported same-sex marriage, he in fact endorsed a state’s right to decide, with no plan to push federal legislation, other than a tepid call for the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. It was apparently a purely political calculation of when the time was right to make the announcement for maximum political gain. Frankly, that claim is not very credible. The more likely scenario is that he planned to announce it after the November election, but with Vice President Joe Biden’s gaffe, meaning that he inadvertently revealed his and the President’s position, Obama’s hand was forced.

So how to explain the President’s dwindling gender gap? “The answer isn’t all that complicated,” argues Jonathan Tobin of Commentary magazine. “Though some liberals may be convinced there is a GOP war on women, most aren’t buying it any more than they believe the president’s flip-flop on gays was a principled stand. Whatever their positions on social issues, most women seem to believe that the economy and the well-being of their families is their primary concern and on that score, Obama has lost their confidence. And it’s not clear that it can be won back by ginning up fake controversies that are transparent attempts to demonize Obama’s opponents.”

Obama’s Growing Credibility Gap

This credibility gap extends to many other areas as well. Does Obama really believe in the Afghanistan mission as it has been carried out, or was it another political calculation centered around Election Day 2012? At the time he announced the troop surge in Afghanistan, which fell significantly short of the numbers sought by his generals on the ground, he also announced a timetable for pulling out the troops. On top of that, during his public flip-flop on the gay marriage question, talking to ABC’s Robin Roberts, Obama stated that the troops are “out there fighting on my behalf,” rather than on the country’s behalf, again highlighting the Obama-as-narcissist theme.

Obama’s credibility was further damaged when it was discovered and publicized by the Heritage Foundation that he was inserting himself into the biographies on the White House website of nearly every president of the past century, with favorable comparisons. Specifically, at the end of the bio of every president since Calvin Coolidge, the Obama White House has added a comment under a section titled, “Did you know?” In each case it was an attempt to gain stature or political advantage for Obama by taking something that they had done as president, and bragged how he was building or expanding on it.

In the case of Ronald Reagan, Obama tried to make it seem that he would have endorsed Obama’s so called Buffett Rule that he is hoping to get passed. Here is what was added to Reagan’s biography: “In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.” Investor’s Business Daily (IBD), citing Reagan’s son Michael, called this “a bold-faced lie.” They wrote, “Rather than raising the capital-gains tax on successful investors or punishing wealthy people—which are Obama’s priorities—Reagan wanted full-bore pro-growth tax reform that would slash rates for everyone, simplify the tax system with only two brackets and eliminate tax shelters that allowed people to avoid paying any taxes at all.”

The White House attempted to explain this away through an anonymous source telling The New York Times that “We simply added links at the bottom of each page to related whitehouse.gov content, which is a commonly used best practice to encourage people to browse more pages on a site.” IBD saw it somewhat differently: “What we have here is an Orwellian rewriting of history akin to the fictional Winston Smith doing it on a daily basis for the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s novel 1984.”

It is an appalling example of narcissism and political gamesmanship, and just bad form. It is something you would expect from Hugo Chavez, or the former Dear Leader in North Korea. It is not fitting for a U.S. president to insinuate himself into other official presidential biographies for propaganda purposes when he has temporary control of the White House website. Especially when the added notations are provably false. While the liberal media are ignoring the story, the conservative media’s reaction ranges from amusement, to disbelief, to outrage.

Obama also has a credibility problem with regard to his position on Israel. As he and the State Department have evolved from supporting Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, to calling it a subject for final status negotiations; to releasing $147 million to the Palestinian Authority, overriding a congressional freeze on those funds; to making demands of Israel on borders and settlements that have never been made; to embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, which spawned Hamas and other terrorist groups, many have serious questions about whether Obama is as supportive of Israel as he sometimes claims, particularly when speaking to Jewish groups. Should we expect to see increased pressure on Israel if he is re-elected in November? We know what he told Dmitry Medvedev to pass along to Russian president Putin about cooperating with Russia on their concerns about our missile defense plans: “This is my last election,” Obama said while not aware there was a live mic nearby. “After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Based on how “flexible” Obama has already been with the election ahead of him, how flexible would he be if gets re-elected?

Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs:

As part of the effort to win over women voters, as mentioned in the lead article of this AIM Report, the Obama campaign has produced an online ad called “The Life of Julia.” It is very revealing in that it shows how the federal government, thanks to Barack Obama, is there from cradle to grave to dole out loans and other assistance to get women through life. That is Obama’s vision for America, and what he thinks America is looking for politically. Maybe he’s right. But there is nothing there about creating an opportunity society. It shows Julia starting a web design business, but backed up with more federal loans. It also reinforces the Obama narcissism theme. It’s all about him.

As we are going to press, a trove of documents was released on the George Zimmerman case that appears to bolster his defense that he is not guilty of second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin. Back in March, ABC News released video that led Al Sharpton and many other media pundits to declare it as proof that there was a conspiracy by the police, along with Zimmerman, to allow this “white Hispanic” to get away with the murder of a young black man.

The Washington Post headlined their above-the-fold story on the new documents, “Martin was shot at close range.” But other reports noted that the newly released pictures were consistent with Zimmerman’s story. He had bloody lacerations on the back of his head, two black eyes, his nose was swollen, and as doctor’s report released earlier in the week showed, his nose was broken. Martin’s autopsy showed there were injuries to his knuckles.

There are also previously unreleased eyewitness and ear-witness reports indicating that Zimmerman was being pummeled by Martin. But there was a report from the Sanford police’s lead investigator that there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman. And one policeman said this could have all been avoided had Zimmerman never left his car. But as attorney Mark Geragos pointed out on CNN’s AC360 with Anderson Cooper, this is not evidence, just an opinion.

According to Alan Dershowitz, a liberal lawyer, writing in The New York Daily News, if this evidence that appears to support Zimmerman’s version of events “turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman—if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.”

Dershowitz said that the special prosecutor, Angela Corey, “was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.” As I argued in an earlier AIM Report, the media and certain politicians have played leading roles in fanning the flames, and this story has a long way to go.

For Accuracy in Media

Roger Aronoff

Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at [email protected].