Anti-Gun Media Bias Evident After Clackamas Mall Shooting

Last Tuesday, an armed man began firing shots at the Clackamas Town Center mall near Portland, Ore.  By the time the incident ended, the shooter had killed two and wounded a third.  But did you hear why the shooter stopped shooting others and killed himself?  Not unless you tuned in to local television station KGW.

On Friday, they broadcast a story, Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter, about Nick Meli, a 22-year-old concealed carry permit holder who drew his Glock .22 on the shooter and, he thinks, prompted the shooter to take his own life.  This sequence of events proved accurate what I wrote the same day in my post, Connecticut School Shooting Provokes Much Thought.

But did many people hear about it?  No.

I ran a Google search of the terms, “concealed carry”, “Nick Meli” and clackamas as well as several three-letter news network acronyms (i.e., abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, fox).  Sadly, my search produced only four results, none of which revealed evidence of coverage by any mainstream media outlets.

Google ClackamasDoes media bias — or, more specifically, anti-gun bias — exist in the mainstream media?  You betcha!

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice, a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including His second book, The CLAPPER MEMO, is coming soon.

HuffPo’s Anti-Israel Bias Exposed

Regarding the tense situation in Israel and the Middle East, I received an important message this morning from the folks at Huff-Watch who keep a watchful and corrective eye on the folks at The Huffington Post.  The subject:  His latest post, “HuffPost video “news” host pushes Hamas lies, ignores savage reality of Hamas”:

In my first major report (2010) on HuffPost’s bias and incitement of hate against Israel, “The Stimulus And The (Approved) Response: Anti-Semitism and Israel-Hatred on Huffington Post,” I documented how it was effectively acting as a PR tool and propaganda arm for Hamas – and that it knowingly violates its own “rules” in order to facilitate the outpouring of Nazi-like hate against Jews, from commenters. A major focus of that report was on HuffPost’s coverage of Operation Cast Lead, which made clear its pro-Hamas, anti-Israel bias. Back then, however, HuffPost was only a top-ten U.S. “news” site.

With the election of President Obama, since early 2009 HuffPost’s “journalists” began being welcomed all over Capitol Hill, and enjoy direct, preferred access to the White House.  It now boasts a blogging stable including many top figures of the Democrat party, and governments around the world.  Less well-known is that as of early 2011, nearly 10,000 unique visitors a day arrived from the three largest incubators of Islamist terror: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt, presumably in part because, as even Abe Foxman (a HuffPost blogger) noted, the comments that HuffPost publishes in response to his articles are “dripping” with anti-Semitism.  Since then, I have been documenting HuffPost’s escalating incitement and tolerance of hate against Israel and Jews — and how it ignores, whitewashes or downplays militant Islamists’ threats, acts and statements against Israelis and Jews.

In the past year, HuffPost’s reach and influence have dramatically escalated: it is now the #1 most-read online “newspaper” in the world. Most recently, it launched a video “news” venture, HuffPost “Live.”  One of its “host-producers” is Ahmed Shihab-Eldin, a former producer for Al Jazeera, and (surprise!) an ardent pro-Islamist, anti-Israel propagandist, as other online publications have documented (Algemeiner; HuffPostMonitor).

My latest report, “HuffPost video “news” host pushes Hamas lies, ignores savage reality of Hamas,” documents how it is now applying the exact same incitement and bias against Israel – but in the world of video – a far more compelling and dynamic medium. Highlights:

• In recent days, Shihab-Eldin has claimed that the only parties in the Middle East that live in justifiable fear are (a) Iran, and (b) the Palestinians, and that Israeli is “terrorizing” what he refers to as the “Occupied Gaza Strip.”

• Both HuffPost and HuffPostLive published not a single story on the front page or World page about the hundreds of rockets, missiles and mortars that Hamas fired into Israel from Nov. 10-14.

• The first story to appear on either page concerning the situation in Israel was Netanyahu’s threat to begin targeted assassinations – which HuffPost defined as against “Gazans” (not Hamas officials and installations).

• Since then, HuffPost and HuffPostLive have consistently published material framed to assail and incite hate against Israel – but not a single piece that reveals Hamas’s fake injury/death videos and photos, or its threat to resume suicide bombings in Israeli cafes and bus stations.

Israeli Defense Force pilot

I ask that you please give this report your urgent attention, and if you feel it is merited, to help publicize the reality of how HuffPost is advancing the cyber-jihad against Israel and Jews with an unrivaled level of influence and reach:

“HuffPost video “news” host pushes Hamas lies, ignores savage reality of Hamas”


Good points, all!

Bob McCarty is the author of “Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice,” a nonfiction book that’s available in paperback and ebook via most online booksellers, including His second book, “The CLAPPER MEMO,” is set for release this fall.

Journalism Dead In America

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

We all know what physicians do, we all know what teachers do, we all know what scientists and engineers do, and we all know what lawyers do.  But do we understand what it is that journalists do?  We are told by those in the profession that the journalist is one who searches for truth so that the truth can be communicated to the masses.  But is that really the case?

If one were to believe the hype that is circulated in the media on behalf of one of their own, the recently departed Mike Wallace, it would require what Hillary Clinton might describe as a “willing suspension of disbelief.”  One does not have to be a “news junkie” to understand that the mainstream media is governed by left wing political bias and that it is just as important to know which stories they fail to report as it is to recognize the bias in the stories they do.

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, tells us that, “Depending on the context, the term journalist may include various types of editors, editorial writers, columnists, and visual journalists, such as photojournalists…  Journalism has developed a variety of ethics and standards.  While objectivity and a lack of bias are often considered important, some types of journalism, such as advocacy journalism, intentionally adopt a non-objective viewpoint.” 

Not once is the word truth mentioned.  That part of the conventional wisdom about the journalism profession… the notion that the journalist engages in a search for truth… is a fiction that has been created by “journalists” in order to enhance their standing as professionals.

So the question arises, is it possible to have a free nation without a free press?  The answer to that question is… perhaps, but only for a brief period of time.

What causes us to consider this question now is the growing body of evidence surrounding the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to be president of the United States.  From the day that he announced his candidacy, it was widely known that he lacked status as a “natural born Citizen,” one of the three principal qualifications for the office.  Yet, the men and women of the media totally ignored that critical shortcoming.

Then, throughout the 2008 presidential primaries, when Obama’s principal opponent was Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), hundreds of bloggers and freelance writer of the “alternative media” researched his background, producing thousands of authoritative articles and editorials for print media and the Internet.  The “journalists” of the mainstream media, captivated by the notion of helping to elect the first black president, ignored the story.

As powerful as the Clinton political machine might have been, they were no match for the fraud, violence and intimidation practiced by the Obama forces.  Hollywood producer Bettina Viviano produced a documentary, titled We Will Not Be Silenced, which told the story of the criminal misdeeds committed by the Obama campaign against Clinton supporters.  The men and women of the mainstream media ignored the documentary evidence, and Obama was nominated by the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, 3,188.5 votes to Clinton’s 1,010.5.

At the close of the convention, it was the responsibility of the convention chairman, Nancy Pelosi, and convention secretary Alice Travis Germond, to certify the names, home addresses, and constitutional eligibility of the party’s nominees to the 50 state election boards so that ballots could be printed.  Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, the certification sent only to the State of Hawaii contained the following affirmation:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.” 

The remaining forty-nine states received the following certification:

“THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively:”

Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.  However, the phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was omitted from certifications sent to those 49 states.  Other than that, the documents were exactly the same… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications.  Hawaii is the only state with a law requiring the certification of constitutional eligibility.

Clearly, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond… and presumably other senior Democratic officials… were aware when they nominated him that Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.  But if the top leaders of the Democratic Party knew, then so did the men and women of the mainstream media.  Yet, they looked the other way, knowing that the Democrats had nominated a man who was ineligible to hold the office of president.

Throughout the 2008 General Election campaign, writers and bloggers of the “alternative media” continued to publish details of Obama’s lack of qualifications, but the men and women of the mainstream media continued to look the other way.

In the three and one-half years that Obama has been in office, numerous lawsuits have been brought against Obama, charging that he is ineligible to serve in the office he occupies.  A number of cases were examined by the members of the Supreme Court for grant of certiorari, but all were denied for “lack of standing,” taking the position that the people of the United States had no right to demand that their president be eligible to hold that office.  The men and women of the mainstream media were fully aware of those efforts but, again, they looked the other way.

Finally, during the month of April 2011, billionaire developer Donald Trump took an interest in the issue and openly questioned the circumstances of Obama’s birth.  With the added attention brought by Trump’s inquiries, Obama caused what appeared to be an authentic long form birth certificate to be uploaded to the White House website on April 27, 2011.  Within days, dozens of the nation’s most knowledgeable forensics experts examined the document and found it to be a poorly crafted forgery.

Finally, on Thursday morning, Aug. 18, 2011, the leaders of the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party presented Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio with a petition bearing the signatures of 242 county residents.  The petition questioned whether or not a fake birth certificate could be used to document Barack Obama’s eligibility to have his name appear on the Maricopa County ballot in the November 2012 General Election.  The petition requested that Sheriff Arpaio conduct a criminal investigation of the alleged forgery.

Sheriff Arpaio assigned the task to a five-member team of retired attorneys and law enforcement professionals, known as the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse.  Following a six month intensive investigation, Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse presented their findings on March 1, 2012 at a nationally televised press conference.  Their findings provided conclusive evidence that the Obama birth certificate… and the Obama draft registration card… were, in fact, forgeries.

Inasmuch as Obama himself testified to the authenticity of his birth document, the findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse represent a felony crime by Barack Obama.  But, again, the men and women of the mainstream media refused to report the story.

Barack Obama’s usurpation of the office of the presidency is the greatest crime ever committed against the people of the United States… a crime greater than the attack on Pearl Harbor, a crime greater than the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.   But what is most shameful and most unforgivable about the crime is that the men and women of the mainstream media, those who are supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people, the ever-watchful guardians of our precious freedoms, stood idly by and allowed it to happen.  They are as complicit in the crime as if they themselves had planned it.

When the terrible national nightmare of the Obama presidency is finally behind us, Obama must be called to answer for his crimes.  He deserves to spend the rest of his days behind bars.  But those who were his principal enablers: the leaders of the Democrat Party, the men and women of the Congress who refused to properly vet him, and the men and women of the mainstream media who failed to properly vet him, must also be held accountable.  Until that work is done, we must conclude that journalism is dead in America.

We the People will have to find a way to ensure that future generations will have all the benefits of a free press… a press for which the search for truth and justice is the paramount purpose.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Be sure to check out Bob McCarty’s new book, Three Days In August: A U.S. Army Special Forces Soldier’s Fight For Military Justice.

Media Bias Exposed… and Then Some!

As one who scooped The New York Times by 100 days on a pretty serious story back in April, I really appreciate the latest effort put forth by muckraker James O’Keefe and Project Veritas to expose media bias at the “Old Gray Lady.”

In the video above, a New York Times consultant and a New York University journalism professor — both self-identified members of the media “elite” — discuss strategy to legitimize Barack Obama, help Occupy Wall Street succeed, preserve National Public Radio‘s tax loophole and defeat GOP presidential candidates Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.  One, Jay Rosen, says, “We are the one percent.”

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BobMcCarty. Thanks in advance for your support!

Will MSM Cover Trial of Accused Killer in Bus Station Shooting on Eve of 9-11 Anniversary? (Update)

A preliminary hearing for Mohamed H. Dawod is set to take place Oct. 12.  Now, one question remains:  Will the mainstream media show any interest in the case that involves a man with a Muslim name allegedly shooting a man he didn’t know in a public place on the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States?

Mohamed H. Dawod

A 25-year-old man from Glendale, Ariz., Dawod pleaded not guilty Monday to charges of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the Sept. 8 shooting death of Justin Hall, 32, of Mt. Vernon, Ohio, at a Greyhound bus station in Springfield, Mo.

On Oct. 12, Dawod will appear before Judge Mark Fitzsimmons at 9 a.m. inside a courtroom at the Greene County (Mo.) Courthouse to answer charges that he shot and killed Hall in front of a crowd of fellow passengers on the bus traveling from Amarillo, Texas, to St. Louis.

Now, especially for members of the mainstream media, I’ll offer some background on the case.

In my first report on the shooting, published the morning of Sept. 9, I wondered whether or not this was a case of terrorism but reported it as only a possibility after officials in the Southwest Missouri community quickly said the shooting appeared random.

In an update several hours later, I cited a local television station report that raised questions about the alleged randomness of the shooting when it quoted Springfield police officials as saying that, because of a language barrier, they had only learned Dawod’s name and had asked the FBI to help them with the investigation.  In other words, I wondered how they could declare a shooting “random” if they were not able to communicate with the suspect.

In the same update, I shared a telling paragraph from the same television station report:

Ten separate witnesses say they did not notice the men fighting or arguing before the shooting. One passenger said she watched the suspect wander around the terminal until the call to line up to re-board the bus. “She then observed the suspect remove a silver and black handgun from a back pack he was carrying,” the officer wrote. “The suspect then pointed the handgun upward while saying something. The witness could not understand what the suspect said and didn’t know if he was speaking English.” No matter what was said the witness said Hall didn’t react or turn around. Shortly after the witness says Dawod shot him from a few feet away.

I also asked another question:

Could it be that, when the man pointed the handgun in the air, he shouted, “Alluh Akbar,” the cry that’s been heard coming from the mouths of so many Islamic extremists moments before they suffer from so-called “sudden jihad syndrome”?

Now, fast-forward to two days ago when I offered another update that contained stunning details that had been published in another local news report.

Based largely on interviews with three people who were at the scene of the shooting, the report noted two observations — that the shooter tried to fire again but could not because his gun jammed and that the witnesses believed the shooter intended to shoot several people — that I had already reported in my original post.

In addition, however, it noted that Patrick Beeman, a friend and traveling companion of the victim, said Dawod asked police a question in English after he was arrested:  “He said, ‘if I quit shooting at people, can I get back on the bus?’”  So Dawod does speak English.

I concluded that update with an observation, writing:  The extent to which Dawod might carry out his version of “legal jihad” — that is, causing the U.S. court system to waste as much time, effort and money as possible on his case — remains to be seen.

What else remains to be seen is the extent to which the mainstream news media outside of Springfield covers this case if, indeed, they cover it at all.  After all, neither the FBI nor the Department of Homeland Security have breathed a peep about the possibility of this being a pre-9/11 anniversary terror attack.

Now, if he had been a member of the Tea Party Movement — WHOA! — things would be different!

UPDATE 9/18/11 at 8:18 a.m. Central:  Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s

UPDATE 9/28/11 at 9:27 a.m. Central:  Listen to Klein Online Investigative Radio Sunday (2-4 p.m. EST) as I’ll be a guest, discussing this story with host Aaron Klein.

UPDATE 9/29/11 at 11:09 a.m. Central:  Looks like Dawod had a 9-inch knife and plenty of ammo when arrested, according to this report.

UPDATE 10/13/11 at 7:34 a.m. Central:  Dawod had a public defender appointed to represent him during a hearing yesterday, according to a Springfield (Mo.) News Leader report, and another hearing has been set to take place Nov. 28.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

New York Times Pushes Blame on Conservative Writers Following Deadly Terror Attacks in Norway

Has The New York Times shouldered any of the blame for injecting into the public square the possibility that Muslims were to blame for the recent terror bombing in Oslo?  Of course, not!  The newspaper has, however, attempted to foist some of the blame for the bombing upon conservative, “counter-jihad” writers — including yours truly — in the United States and Europe.

In case you missed it, the “Old Gray Lady” of newspapering — note, I didn’t use the word “journalism” — ran a piece Saturday which, on page two, including the following paragraph about who might be responsible for the deadly attacks at the Norwegian government building and on the island of Utoeya that, combined, left more than 100 dead:

Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.

The article ended with the following “insightful” commentary from John D. Cohen, principal deputy counterterrorism coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security:

“What happened in Norway,” Mr. Cohen said, “is a dramatic reminder that in trying to prevent attacks, we cannot focus on a single ideology.”

While I didn’t quote Cohen in my Saturday afternoon piece about the attacks, I did mention the alleged claim of responsibility by the Muslim group and was careful to cite the Times as having published that alleged claim.

Still, it didn’t take long for loyal readers of the Timesin particular, one chap from the United Kingdom who anonymously posted a dozen or so comments (most of which I deleted) — to come after me.  “For what?” you ask. Allegedly blaming muslims for the dirty deeds in Norway and, ergo, wanting to kill them in revenge.  Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

Such attempts to paint conservatives — especially conservative writers like me — as extremists willing to exact death and destruction upon others as some twisted means of restoring freedom, justice and the American Way to daily living, makes me think we’ve entered Round Two of a thought-policing action that exposed more than two years ago in my post, Yikes, I Might Be Part of the Militia Movement!

In that report, I noted how I fit the criteria for being identified as a member of the militia movement, according to a report issued Feb. 20, 2009, by the Missouri Information Analysis Center — then a little-known branch of the Missouri State Police — and signed by the Show-Me State’s new liberal governor, Democrat Jay Nixon.  Below are some of the examples I cited:

  • ECONOMIC COLLAPSE OF THE UNITED STATES: They explain, “Many militia organizations feel that the U.S. government will fall due to economic or racial issues.” They follow up on that thought by citing the influence of a recent political forecast by Igor Panarin, a Russian professor, upon militia members.  Panarin predicted in December that the U.S. would collapse and split into six different regions controlled by foreign governments.  Lock me up! On Dec. 29, I wrote and published a post about Panarin’s prediction and even reprinted the very map contained in the MIAC document — and I did it on the same day as the subversives at the Wall Street Journal published an article on the same subject.
  • RFID TECHNOLOGY: They explain that militia members fear the government will enforce mass RFID human implantations that would make it possible for the government to continually know the locations of all citizens.  Lock me up! I’ve written at least three posts about RFID technology since Aug. 30, 2008.
  • CHRISTIAN IDENTITY: Next to a page 4 subhead, “Christian Identity,” they explain that religious ideology is popular in extreme right-wing circles.  Lock me up! I’m a Christian!

“It seems like they want to stifle political thought” is how Roger Webb, then-president of the University of Missouri Libertarians, described the motivation behind the report, according to an Associated Press article published March 14, 2009 (link no longer available).  Based on what the folks at the Times are saying in the wake of the Oslo tragedies, I can only conclude that they would like to do the same.

UPDATE 7/25/11 at 7:12 p.m. Central:  Cross-posted at

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BloggingMachine. Thanks in advance for your support!

Biased Reporter to Anchor ‘CBS Evening News’ (Update)

Scott Pelley will take over the “CBS Evening News” anchor chair from Katie Couric, effective June 6, according to a story published on the network’s web site, but that’s no cause for excitement.

Contrary to glowing comments made about the veteran reporter by CBS executives, the truth about Pelley’s biased reporting is quite disturbing. One stark example of his bias aired two years ago today in the form of the “60 Minutes” segment, “Amazon Crude,” (below) which painted Chevron Corporation in a particularly bad light for alleged wrongdoing in Ecuador.

Even before it aired, there was plenty of evidence to refute claims Pelley let stand as facts in his piece.   After that report aired, a virtual laundry list of new and irrefutable facts surfaced to change the complexion of this case.  Still, neither Pelley, “60 Minutes” or CBS News has seen fit to set the record straight.  Thankfully, someone else has.

As I reported in a post almost six months ago, the person chiefly responsible for so many new facts coming to light in the case is Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York:

On May 6, 2010, Judge Kaplan granted the San Ramon, Calif.-based oil giant’s request to have outtakes from Joe Berlinger’s controversial documentary, “CRUDE,” about the lawsuit released.

On Oct. 7, 2010, Judge Kaplan wrote in a memo to his court clerk that copies of the outtakes should be provided to three requesters — Thomson Reuters, American Lawyer Magazine and ALM Media — as well as to “any member of the public who requests (them) upon payment of the reasonable cost of duplication and blank media.” In other words, they should be made public.

On Oct. 20, 2010, Judge Kaplan ruled that Chevron can question and obtain evidence from Steven Donziger, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Finally, on Nov. 6, 2010, Judge Kaplan issued a 54-page legal opinion that could be considered the “death blow” to the case against Chevron. Not only did he turn down Donziger’s requests to limit Chevron attorneys’ access to certain information and subject areas, he wrote described Donziger’s legal proposal as “not persuasive.”

Most newsworthy in Judge Kaplan’s opinion were three entries appearing under the heading, “The Nature of Donziger’s Activities,” on the table of contents. Each foretold the volatile content of the opinion itself.

In “The March 30, 2006, Intimidation of the Judge,” Judge Kaplan wrote the following:

The outtakes depict Donziger and other plaintiffs representatives traveling to an ex parte meeting with a judge on March 30, 2006. At least parts of the meeting appear in Crude. Prior to the meeting, Donziger described his plan to “intimidate,” “pressure,” and “humiliate” the judge:

“The only language that I believe this judge is going to understand is one of pressure, intimidation and humiliation. And that’s what we’re doing today. We’re going to let him know what time it is. . . . As a lawyer, I never do this. You don’t have to do this in the United States. It’s dirty. . . . It’s necessary. I’m not letting them get away with this stuff.”

Donziger repeatedly referred to the Ecuadorian judicial system as “weak,” “corrupt,” and lacking integrity. He further explained to the camera:

“The judicial system is so utterly weak. The only way that you can secure a fair trial is if you do things like that. Like go in and confront the judge with media around and fight and yell and scream and make a scene. That would never happen in the United States or in any judicial system that had integrity.”

Beneath “The Plan to Pressure the Court With an ‘Army,’” the judge wrote the following:

Over a year later, the Crude crew filmed a conversation between Donziger and Fajardo in which Donziger and Fajardo discussed the need to “be more and more aggressive” and to “organize pressure demonstrations at the court.” In the same clip, Donziger referred to the litigation as a “matter of combat” that requires “actually . . . put[ting] an army together.”

The outtakes captured a June 6, 2007 meeting in which Donziger outlined a strategy to pressure an Ecuadorian court. Donziger told those present that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs needed to “do more politically, to control the court, to pressure the court” because Ecuadorian courts “make decisions based on who they fear most, not based on what the laws should dictate.”

Donziger expressed concern that no one feared the plaintiffs, and he stated that the plaintiffs would not win unless the courts begin to fear them. Donziger described also his desire to take over the court with a massive protest as a way to send a message to the court of “don’t f— with us anymore – not now, and not – not later, and never.” He then proposed raising “our own army” to which Yanza interjected “a specialized group . . . for immediate action.”

At that point, Atossa Soltani of Amazon Watch interrupted and asked whether “you guys know if anybody can, uh, subpoena these videos.” Donziger responded, “We don’t have the power of subpoena in Ecuador.” Soltanithen asked, “What about U.S.?,” but Donziger interrupted her and ignored the question. She persisted, saying “I just want you to know that it’s . . . illegal to conspire to break the law” to which Donziger said, “No law’s been conspired to be broken.” The conversation about raising an army to pressure the court then continued, with Yanza waving the camera away as he told Donziger that the “army” could be supplied with weapons.

Two days later, speaking directly to the camera, Donziger continued to emphasize the importance of pressuring the judge in the Lago Agrio litigation. According to Donziger, the plaintiffs’ “biggest problem” had been their inability to pressure the judge. He explained that suing Chevron for moral damages or pressuring the Prosecutor General to open criminal investigations was not sufficient to make the judge feel pressure. Donziger asserted that the plaintiffs needed to do things that the judge would “really feel” such as being “called out” by the president of the country or the supreme court, implying that Donziger and others could develop strategies that would result in such actions.

Finally, Judge Kaplan added more thoughts under the section, “Killing the Judge?” as follows:

Finally, Donziger participated in a dinner conversation about what might happen to a judge who ruled against the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. One or more other participants in the conversation suggested that a judge would be “killed” for such a ruling. Donziger replied that the judge “might not be [killed], but he’ll think – he thinks he will be . . . which is just as good.”

To Judge Kaplan’s findings, we can add several other revealing reports:

Carter Woods’ report, ‘Crude’ Footage Reveals Lies Behind Trial Lawyers’ Suit Against Chevron, was published Aug. 2, 2010, on the National Association of Manufacturers’ Shop Floor blog. As the headline makes clear, the outtakes yielded proof of many lies on the part of the Amazon Defense Coalition, the group representing the plaintiffs in the 17-year-old lawsuit against Chevron.

My Jan. 21, 2011, report, Company That Earned Millions from Gulf Cleanup Tangled in Suit That Could Cost Chevron $113B, which scooped The New York Times by almost 100 days, highlighted connections between the firm that wrote a controversial “expert opinion” for the plaintiffs in the case the “Old Gray Lady” would later describe as a “racketeering” lawsuit.

Carter Woods’ Feb. 3, 2011, report which needs no further explanation beyond the headline, In Chevron Shakedown, Ecuador’s Government Plays a Part.

Of course, I could cite more milestones in the history of the lawsuit, each of which should have prompted Pelley and his CBS News brethren to revisit the case.  Unfortunately, I don’t think doing so will prompt members of the CBS News team to have a collective epiphany of objectivity that results in them wanting to set the record straight.

And so, CBS News continues on its path.  Going the way of the dinosaur.  Toward extinction.

UPDATE 5/05/11 at 5:25 p.m. Central: Cross-posted at Andrew Breitbart’s

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!