The New York Times, along with most in the elite media, led the charge to have someone (preferably Karl Rove!) indicted for “outing” Valerie Plame, claiming the “outing” endangered our national security. The “Times” later, thanks to a leak, printed classified information concerning our “rendition” program that authorizes sending terrorist suspects to friendly foreign countries for incarceration, and interrogation. Even worse, the “Times”, based on yet another leak, made public classified information concerning warrantless domestic eavesdropping on U.S. based international phone calls and e-mails. These actions have apparently prevented at least one potential terrorist attack on the Brooklyn Bridge. So much for the “Times” concern for our security, or their disdain for leakers!
In the Plame case, a two-year investigation by a special prosecutor discovered there was no “outing”, because Plame did not meet the requirements of having been overseas in a covert position within the past five years, and that the source was aware of her status, and still leaked her name. Even more damaging to the charges were statements made in October of 2003 by NBC news reporter Andrea Mitchell that it was well know among many reporters that Plame was with the CIA. I don’t recall the “Times” reporting that fact. In any event, the “Times” has not yet explained how releasing the name of someone in a desk job at CIA headquarters endangered our security. Nevertheless, the “Times” would not let the story die, as they endlessly conjectured that Karl Rove would (hopefully!) be indicted. The “Times” subsequently “outed” two classified, terrorism-fighting programs that could well endanger our security. It appears that the main objective of the “Times” is to destroy the Bush Administration, and if that means supplying classified information to our enemy, so be it. So much for the “Times” concern for our security
Why is the “Times” absolutist when it comes to insisting they have the “right” to aid our enemies, but has a very different view of free speech when it comes to a valedictorian wishing to utter a prayer at a graduation ceremony? The “Times” while insisting the First Amendment gives them the right to print distortions, half-truths, and outright lies, when on numerous occasions they altered, or even attributed quotes to people who never said what the “Time” quoted them as having said. Yet, the “Times” routinely suggests there is a “wall of separation” between church and state that prohibits any prayer by any student at any graduation ceremony. This phantom wall illegally prohibits Nativity scenes on public property, or saying the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, or permitting school to have the word “Christmas” on school calendars. Apparently to some, calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tee is establishing a religion!
From where did this phantom, “wall of separation” term emanate? Yes, Thomas Jefferson used the term in a private letter to a Baptist Congregation in Connecticut. It had nothing to do with government policy or the Constitution. In fact, the very next day Jefferson attended church services in the House chamber, as he did until his term ended. More than 150 years later in 1947, Justice Hugo Black, a former KKK member who hated Catholics, put this misused term in a Supreme Court opinion that he authored. The case concerned the reimbursement of bus fares, from public funds, to Parochial School students. Today the “Times” and their ideological allies have rewritten history to make us believe that the Framers used this meaningless term to construct some illusory “wall” between church and state. First Amendment prohibits government interference in the “right” to practice one’s religion, not the practice of religion. The “Times” and other secularists have twisted a simple document into something it was never meant to be. Perhaps it is time to revisit the absolutism of the First Amendment to bring it up to date. After all, we’re routinely told that the Constitution is a “living” document.
Tony Moschetti
High Point, NC
December 28, 2005
