WorldNetDaily is continuing its shift away from Obama birtherism and toward Obama impeachment.
On the former front, birther queen Orly Taitz seems to have become persona non grata at WND. Not only did it ignore Taitz's crashing of a CPAC session headed by anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller to rant about birther stuff, Geller didn't even bring up Geller in her WND column about her CPAC appearance.
Taitz's remonstrations and insults were wrong. Her insults were rude and wrong. Her issue is with CPAC, not Breitbart. If she wants to be there, she should take a room and hold an event.
Is Geller following in WND's footsteps and pretending she didn't swallow the birther conspiracy hook, line and sinker? How dishonest of her.
On the latter front, a March 17 WND article by Bob Unruh summarizes the latest handiwork from ethically challenged pollster Fritz Wenzel, which purports to claim that more Americans are demanding Obama's impeachment. But if you look at Wenzel's questions -- which Unruh laughably called a "scientific survey" -- it's clear that Wenzel was pushing his respondents to agree with his predetermined conclusion that Obama should be impeached.
Look at the progression of questions on one issue, recess appointments:
The U.S. Constitution provides for the president to fill vacancies in his administration when the U.S. Senate is in recess, but when the Senate is in session, they must confirm his nominees. But while the Senate was in session in January 2012, President Obama made what he called recess appointments and these people took office and began to take action on federal business. A federal court later ruled that these appointments violated the Constitution, but these officials continue in their positions. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should have made these appointments?
Do you agree or disagree that these officials should remain in office making decisions after a federal court has ruled their appointments unconstitutional?
Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for making these appointments in violation oo the Constitution?
Wenzel is simply reciting right-wing talking points about the case in a biased, misleading way, completely omitting the Obama administration's arguments. Further, it was not a "federal court" that declared the appointments unconstitutional -- it was a three-judge panel of that court, the DC Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. The administration can appeal to have the full DC Circuit review the case, after which it can go to the Supreme Court. In fact, one of the federal agencies involved in the case is petitioning the Supreme Court to review the case, bypassing the full DC Circuit.
In short, the DC Circuit panel that reviewed the case is not the last word on it, but Wenzel didn't see fit to tell his poll respondents that.
Wenzel similarly leaves out important details in a series of questions on Obama's drone policy:
The Obama administration has used missile strikes fired from unmanned drones to kill at least three United States citizens, none of which had renounced their citizenship or been convicted of a crime in any U.S. court. The administration received no permission to conduct these killings from Congress or from any federal judge or court. Regardless of whom these people were who were killed, do you agree or disagree that the Obama administration had the right to kill its own citizens in this manner?
These citizens were all said to have links to terrorist activities, despite not being adjudicated by the courts. Knowing this, do you agree or disagree that the Obama administration had the right to kill these American citizens?
Had the Obama administration pursued and won criminal convictions against these people, even if in absentia, would you agree that following that legal process would then give the Obama administration the right to kill these American citizens, or would you have preferred these people be captured and subjected to the traditional U.S. court system of punishment?
Do you agree or disagree that President Obama committed an impeachable offense by ordering these U.S. citizens be killed?
Wenzel doesn't tell his respondents who the American citizens are who were killed by drone strikes -- known terrorists Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, and Al-Awlaki's teenage son -- nor did he mention that all of these drone strikes occurred on foreign soil, not in the United States.
And, yes, Wenzel is a highly partisan pollster with a heavy anti-Obama bias, as Unruh demonstrates:
“American voters apparently are finally, after more than four years, beginning to connect the sluggish economy, the precarious state of international affairs and Barack Obama,” Wenzel said. “After an inauguration bounce, his job approval has now returned to near the lowest level he has ever seen, with 42 percent giving him positive marks for his overall performance.”
Wenzel said: “Some of this has to do in particular with his ham-handed management of the recent sequester budget battle with Congress – and the aftermath which has shown he and his administration spokesmen deceived the country. Even some media outlets have started grilling administration officials over inconsistencies and other problems. The tide seems to have turned against the Obama administration, as not even a majority of Democrats give him positive marks for his handling of his job.”
Can anyone really expect a "scientific" poll about Obama to come from someone with such clear animus against him? Bob Unruh apparently does.