Is Jerome Corsi, currently traipsing around Hawaii, following in the footsteps of Andy Martin? That's what Martin says:

Jerome Corsi began his book with a citation to my original work on Barack Obama. Now Corsi has filed a copycat request for Barack Obama's original birth certificate, after I filed a lawsuit in Honolulu seeking the same document. Why didn’t Corsi seek Obama's birth certificate before he wrote his book, not months afterwards?
 
It looks like I started something.

[...]

A couple of weeks ago Corsi was in Kenya saying Obama was born there. Now he is in Hawai'i accepting my theory that Obama was born in Hawai'i. Corsi can't seem to make up his mind between Kenya and Hawai'i. Maybe he is waiting for me to tell him the facts. Perhaps he knows better than to believe his own b.s. Corsi knows whom to believe: me. He might even buy my book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.

[...]

Mr. Corsi's breathless disclosure of newspaper announcements from 1961 is also old news. We have had those for months. Why is Corsi undercutting his "Kenya" theory? Or is it "We all believe Andy, because Andy is the only real investigator in this parade?"

Remember, WND believes Martin is a credible source -- Aaron Klein affirmatively cited Martin to attack Obama. Those of us in the reality-based community, meanwhile, know that Martin is an anti-Semitic nutjob, and even Fox News has apologized for booking Martin onto Sean Hannity's weekly Obama smear-fest (though, strangely, Hannity himself has not).

Martin, by the way, also believes that Obama's father is Frank Marshall Davis. When will Corsi be reporting that? Well, he's close: an Oct. 30 article claims that Obama and Davis sold drugs together, citing yet another of those anonymous, unsubstantiated yet somehow "credible" sources.

Posted by Terry K. at 1:00 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:07 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

An Oct. 29 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers cites "Iranian-born commentator Amir Taheri" claiming in a New York Post column that Barack Obama's "'Islamic roots' have won him a place in many Arabs' hearts."

But Meyers does not note Taheri's history of false and misleading claims. As we've detailed, Taheri in 2006 asserted that Iran had passed a law requiring Jews and Christians to wear badges identifying themselves as such -- a claim later retracted. Earlier this month, Taheri claimed that Obama "tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence" until after the election -- also not true.

And as Richard Bartholomew reports, the Forbes website removed an article by Taheri suggesting that Obama is "the 'promised warrior' coming to help the Hidden Imam of Shiite Muslims conquer the world."

Posted by Terry K. at 12:08 AM EDT

Updated: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:17 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Shocker -- Aaron Klein attempts to tell more than one side of a story!

In an Oct. 29 WorldNetDaily article -- in what may be his very first article critical of John McCain after dozens upon dozens attacking Barack Obama -- Klein actually reported that, like Obama, McCain sat on a board that gave money to an organization tied to Rashid Khalidi, the Center for Palestine Research and Studies, as first reported by the Huffington Post (to which Klein provides no link). As we pointed out (which perhaps shamed Klein into doing this article), Klein has for months made a big deal out of the organization whose board Obama sat on giving money to a Khalidi organization.

But after a couple paragraphs of balance, Klein quickly insisted there was a difference: 

Unreported by the Huffington Post is that the CPRS, with which Khalidi was for a time moderately involved, is pro-Western and can be characterized as pro-Israel.

Its work has been condemned by the Palestinian leadership and by local terror groups as "Zionist propaganda."

In contrast, the Khalidi organization Obama helped fund as a board member for a nonprofit, alongside domestic terrorist William Ayers, has taken a flagrantly anti-Israel line. Khalidi's Arab American Action Network has hosted scores of Israel-bashing events, including at least one reportedly attended by Obama.

What follows is Klein's boilerplate bashing of Khalidi and Obama.

Klein describes Khalidi's work with the CPRS as being "for a time moderately involved," but he later writes that Khalidi was one of "seven Palestinian activists" who founded the group -- which indicates Khalidi's involvement was more than"moderate."

By contrast, Klein offers no comparable gauge of involvement with the other Khalidi-linked group in question, the Arab American Action Network. Klein recites the group's to "empower Chicago-area Arab immigrants and Arab Americans through the combined strategies of community organizing, advocacy, education and social services, leadership development, and forging productive relationships with other communities," but rather than describe how it does that, he cherry-picks the allegedly "anti-Israel" events but offers no evidence there are "scores" of them, as he claimed.

Klein also stated that "The AAAN website currently states the entire site is under construction," but we found it just fine -- and found what the group does that Klein won't tell his readers about. Among them:

• English as a Second Language
• Citizenship/Civics Education
• Domestic Violence Program 
• After-School Program
• Summer Youth Camp 

In other words, Klein's depiction of the group as solely "anti-Israel" is highly misleading.

Klein suggests that the Khalidi connection taints Obama but not McCain, but he doesn't explain why. After all, it's the same man, is it not? If Khalidi was a bad man working for one group, why isn't he a bad man working for the other?

Klein has shown a shred of integrity by finally reporting something negative about his (and his employer's) chosen presidential candidate -- though he would have shown more integrity had he reported it months ago, when he was obsessed by Khalidi's connection to Obama. Now, will Klein go all the way and report to his readers McCain's endorsement by Al Qaeda? Or is he trying to concoct a way to spin that too?

Posted by Terry K. at 7:36 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Joseph Farah writes in his Oct. 29 WorldNetDaily column:

[Barack Obama] says he was only 8 years old when [William] Ayers performed his "despicable" deeds. As I pointed out, that's not true. However, suppose it was?

Obama was also 8 years old when another American performed despicable deeds. His name was Charles Manson. Would it be a legitimate excuse – a worthy rationalization – if Obama had maintained a working political alliance with Manson for five years? Would it be acceptable for Obama to say, "Gee, I didn't know about his history. I was only 8 years old at the time"?

I don't think so.

Meanwhile, Joseph Farah was a youngster -- perhaps even 8 years old -- when domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy was breaking into buildings and plotting to murder and bomb innocent people. And Farah was an adult when Liddy told his listeners how to kill federal agents.

Yet, as we've documented, Liddy has a close relationship with Farah and WorldNetDaily -- heck, Farah even guest-hosted Liddy's radio show a couple weeks ago.

Farah surely knows about Liddy's history of felonious crime and violence. Yet Farah has not spoken a word about why he pals around with a domestic terrorist. 

As long as Farah continues to hang with Liddy -- who is just as much, if not more, of a domestic terrorist as Ayers -- Farah has no moral standing to criticize Obama. 

Posted by Terry K. at 3:01 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

Lowell Ponte's repeated misleading claims about Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN apparently aren't taking hold, so he's using his Oct. 29 Newsmax column to resort to that old standby, the personal smear:

Barack Obama's ideology of “redistribution of the wealth” can be called socialism, Marxism, fascism or welfare-state liberalism. But whatever label you give it, add the words irrational and sinful.

Mr. Obama describes himself as a Christian, but what he advocates violates at least two of the Bible’s 10 Commandments — the ones covering stealing, and coveting anything belonging to your neighbor.

Ponte is, of course, still spreading lies about Obama, this time claiming that "Mr. Obama has vowed not to renew President George W. Bush's tax cuts set to expire in 2010. This would impose a $2 trillion tax increase that will batter American families earning as little as $42,000 per year." In fact, Obama has repeatedly said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts only for "the wealthiest Americans."

Posted by Terry K. at 2:18 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

NewsBusters executive editor Matthew Sheffield announced that he has been named managing editor of the Washington Examiner's website. The press release on Sheffield's appointment that he posted at NewsBusters describing his background is notable by its omission of the fact that all of the ventures he has been involved with are all linked to conservative activism. In fact, the word "conservative" appears nowhere in the press release, though it's crucial to his employment history.

The Examiner already swings to the right with an exclusively conservative editorial page under Mark Tapscott and the hiring of former Washington Times reporters such as Bill Sammon, Rowan Scarborough and Susan Ferrechio to helm its political coverage. Another conservative activist, Mary Katherine Ham, formerly of Townhall.com, already works as the Examiner's online editor. (We've detailed some of this.)

It looks like the Examiner is on its way to becoming the new Washington Times, in that its right-wing bias colors everything, including osensibly "fair and balanced" news coverage.

Does Washington really need another slavishly right-wing newspaper operated by a billionaire with bottomless pockets to fund it? And does the Internet really need another slavishly right-wing website?

Posted by Terry K. at 1:07 PM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:51 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

In an Oct. 28 NewsBusters post, Matthew Balan wrote: "CNN anchor Campbell Brown criticized the sexism of the 'diva' comment about Sarah Palin from a supposed anonymous McCain campaign adviser on Monday’s Election Center program, despite how it was her own network that highlighted this remark." He continued:

At the end of her commentary, which led the Election Center program, the CNN anchor attacked the supposed hypocrisy of the McCain campaign and criticized the unnamed McCain campaign official for using the "diva" term: "So, now, for the McCain campaign to be attacking its own candidate in the most overtly sexist way, calling her a ‘diva,’ -- it is beyond ridiculous. Whoever this anonymous adviser is should be ashamed, or, at the very least, have the courage to say it on the record." Since Brown didn’t say anything critical about how her network ran with the comment during her commentary, despite its anonymous nature, one would guess that she isn’t ashamed of CNN’s action in this matter. Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?

Is Balan really arguing that CNN should not have reported what that McCain campaign official said about Palin -- even though it's eminently newsworthy -- just because it could be considered sexist?

Would Balan raise the same "sexist" argument if, say, an "unnamed Obama campaign official" called Hillary Clinton a "diva"? We suspect not.

Posted by Terry K. at 11:16 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

An Oct. 28 Newsmax article by David Patten asserts that "the press" is "out to get Sarah Palin." His evidence? Carefully selected headlines from the Associated Press indicating "negative news reports about her."

But a look at Patten's carefully chosen headlines show that he appears to have mistaken factual for "negative." It's absolutely true that, as one headline stated, "GOP Spent $150,000 in Donations on Palin's Look." ANd we don't understand why Patten considers headlines such as "Palin Says Obama's Policies Could Lead to Crises" and "Palin Answers Several Questions from Reporters" and "McCain Says Obama Didn't Call Palin a Pig" are "negative.

Patten, of course, neglects to mention that Newsmax is fully participating in the anti-Obama frenzy of its ConWeb bretheren. Some sample headlines from Newsmax articles in the past few days:

• Obama's Unsavory Ties to Islamic Extremists
• Obama Attacks Founding Fathers, Constitution
• Joe The Plumber Warns America About Obama
• Obama: Most Secretive Democratic Presidential Candidate Ever (formerly Barack Obama: The Most Secretive Democrat in History)
• Obama Buys the Election, Most Media Are Silent
• Obama Campaign's Secret Cash: Has $63 Million Flowed from Foreign Sources?
• Obama Wants 12 Million Illegals to Get Citizenship
• Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud
• Bill O’Reilly: Obama Was Close to Ayers 
• 'Smears' About Obama Largely True
• Powell Is Wrong About Obama's Muslim Past

Is Newsmax out to get Obama? You betcha.

Posted by Terry K. at 9:16 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

From an Oct. 28 Newsmax article by Jim Meyers, reporting on Michael Savage's endorsement of John McCain:

“I have put my own ego aside and I have to say what’s best for America.

“I’ll take my chances with the old war horse and even with Sarah Palin, who I’m not really a big fan of, by the way, over this naked Marxist revolutionary, because I don’t want to see what the next Pol Pot’s liable to do to the world.”

Pol Pot was the communist leader of Cambodia during the 1970s, and along with his Khmer Rouge followers was responsible by some estimates for 1.7 million deaths in the Southeast Asian nation.

Did Savage really liken Obama to Pol Pot? That's what Meyers seems to have written. We don't listen to Savage's show, so it's hard to tell otherwise. Then again, Savage has a long history of smearing Obama.

UPDATE: Here's the audio of Savage. 

Posted by Terry K. at 12:31 AM EDT

Updated: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 12:37 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

“Hardball” host Chris Matthews showed the ignorance of the mainstream media during his Oct. 20 show. He asked a guest: “Is socialist a bad word, a naughty word?” Of course it is. Ordinary Americans know that answer. Only media types do not.

-- Dan Gainor, Oct. 27 CNSNews.com column

Posted by Terry K. at 12:09 AM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

One key staple of Aaron Klein's anti-Obama reporting for WorldNetDaily has been his claim, first made in February, that the Woods Foundation -- at a time when Barack Obama was a member of its board -- issued grants totaling $75,000 to a group run by Rashid Khalidi, who runs "a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a 'catastrophe.'" Klein further tried to tie Khalidi directly to the PLO at a time when it "committed scores of anti-Western attacks and was labeled by the U.S. as a terror group."

Klein invoked Khalidi again in an Oct. 27 column, calling him a "pro-PLO Professor." An Oct. 28 news article by Klein called Khalidi "an anti-Israel professor who excuses terrorism."

But Klein has never reported that John McCain has similar ties to Khalidi's group as well.

The Huffington Post reports that the International Republican Institute -- chaired for much of the 1990s by McCain -- gave another group headed by Khalidi numerous grants, including one for nearly half a million dollars, dwarfing the money he received from the Obama-linked Woods Foundation.

When will Klein report this to his readers? Probably about the same time he tells his readers that McCain was endorsed by Al Qaeda. 

Posted by Terry K. at 7:12 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:20 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

In an Oct. 28 FrontPageMag article, ex-WorldNetDaily reporter Paul Sperry gets it even more wrong than his fellow conservatives about Barack Obama's statements on a Chicago public radio station in 2001.

Not only did Sperry assert that "Obama said it's a 'tragedy' the Constitution wasn't radically interpreted to force redistribution of wealth for blacks" -- in fact, Obama said it was a "traged[y]" that the civil rights movement relied so heavily on the courts to advance its agenda -- he repeated the lie that Obama said "the Warren Court was not 'radical' enough" -- in fact, Obama stated that the Warren Court's refusal to address the issue of "redistributive change" was evidence that it wasn't as radical as critics claim it was.

Sperry then takes a huge leap of logic and common sense by declaring that Obama's "remarks can only be interpreted to mean one thing: economic reparations for slavery." He then insists that government programs such as "universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s" are tantamount to "stealth reparations."

Sperry also embarks on creative reinterpretations of Obama's other work as well. He writes:

He also wrote in his recent autobiography that he sympathizes with militant black activists who fear that "white Americans will be let off the hook" for past crimes, such as "a hundred years of lynching under several dozen administrations."

Sperry takes two apparently random statements hundreds of pages apart out of context to stitch together something Obama never said. From "The Audacity of Hope," page 248:

Old habits die hard, and there is always a fear on the part of many minorities that unless racial discrimination, past and present, stays on the front burner, white America will be let off the hook and hard-fought gains may be reversed. I understand these fears—nowhere is it ordained that history moves in a straight line, and during difficult economic times it is possible that the imperatives of racial equality get shunted aside.

Still, when I look at what past generations of minorities have had to overcome, I am optimistic about the ability of this next generation to continue their advance into the economic mainstream.

From "The Audacity of Hope," pp. 21-22:

My wife will tell you that by nature I'm not somebody who gets real worked up about things.  When I see Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity baying across the television screen, I find it hard to take them seriously; I assume that they must be saying what they do primarily to boost book sales or ratings, although I do wonder who would spend their precious evenings with such sourpusses.  When Democrats rush up to me at events and insist that we live in the worst of political times, that a creeping fascism is closing its grip around our throats, I may mention the internment of Japanese Americans under FDR, the Alien and Sedition Acts under John Adams, or a hundred years of lynching under several dozen administrations as having been possibly worse, and suggest we all take a deep breath.  When people at dinner parties ask me how I can possibly operate in the current political environment, with all the negative campaigning and personal attacks, I may mention Nelson Mandela, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, or some guy in a Chinese or Egyptian prison somewhere.  In truth, being called names is not such a bad deal.

Those two statements have nothing to do with each other, except in Sperry's fevered brain. But since he's already lying about Obama said in the radio interview, why wouldn't he lie about what Obama said in his book as well?

Posted by Terry K. at 5:21 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:22 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

For the second day in a row, the ConWeb lies and misleads about Barack Obama's 2001 comments to a public radio station.

The Media Research Center's Brent Baker claimed that "Barack Obama regretted that 'the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.'" CNSNews.com similarly asserted that Obama "lamented in a 2001 radio interview that the civil rights movement had failed to cause 'redistributive change.'" The claim that Obama "regretted" or "lamented" those things are pure inventions on Baker's and CNS' part (who, in turn, are just regurgitating Matt Drudge); rather, Obama merely factually stated that those things did not take place.

At NewsBusters, Lyndsi Thomas complained that NPR didn't report that "John McCain specifically addressed the recently surfaced audio and even quoted Obama as saying, 'One of the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.'" But Thomas failed to report that McCain falsely described the statement as meaning that "one of the quote -- 'tragedies' of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society." Scott Whitlock echoed Baker's lie that "Obama lamented to a radio interviewer that 'the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.'" And P.J. Gladnick misleadingly claimed that Obama "called for legislative means to redistribute the wealth."

At WorldNetDaily, the poll question of the day is: "What's your reaction to Obama saying the Constitution is defective?" Of course, Obama said no such thing. Given that lie, it's no surprise that the leading response by far is, "Obama is defective, not the Constitution."

Posted by Terry K. at 3:07 PM EDT

Updated: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:32 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink

An Oct. 28 unbylined WorldNetDaily article downplays accusations of voter suppression in Michigan by Republicans in the form of using lists of foreclosed homes to challenge votes, claiming that the accusation is "based solely on unconfirmed reports and rumors" that "started on a leftwing blog in Michigan." At no point does WND report what that "leftwing blog" actually reported.

In fact, the Michigan Messenger quoted a Michigan county Republican leader as saying "We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses" -- hardly "unconfirmed reports and rumors."

While WND reported that the Obama campaign filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan Republicans over the alleged scheme, it failed to report that the lawsuit has been settled. Michigan Democrats later stated that the settlement "acknowledges the existence" of such a scheme, while Republicans claimed there is "no proof ever existed" of it.

The bulk of the WND article, though, is dedicated to attacking Rep. Maxine Waters for promoting the charges, accusing her of "fann[ing] the flames of the deadly Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, earning her the nickname 'Kerosene Maxine,'" and suggesting that she will lead "unrest" among blacks on Election Day.

By contrast, WND regularly runs unconfirmed stories about Barack Obama -- and even outright lies, as well as claims it has previously debunked -- so WND's sudden concern about reporting "rumors" is the height of hypocrisy.

Posted by Terry K. at 2:28 PM EDT

Share This Post

Permalink