Failed lawyer Larry Klayman continues his record of failure -- not that you'd know it from reading WorldNetDaily.
The headline on WND's Nov. 26 article on its lawsuit against Esquire magazine is laughably vague: "Court rules in WND's 'birth certificate' lawsuit; 'This is an issue for the jury to decide.'"
It's not until you actually read the story that you realize that 1) WND's lawsuit was dismissed yet again, this time by a federal appeals court, and 2) the person quoted as calling for a jury trial was not a judge but Klayman. WND is so clearly incapable of objectively reporting on itself that it can't even put the main fact of the story in the headline.
The article curiously fails to link to the ruling, even though it was posted online, and it waits until the 11th paragraph to actually quote from the ruling while giving copious space to Klayman rant about why the lawsuit should not have been dismissed (but is really just demonstrating why he sucks as a lawyer).
Surprisingly, WND actually tells the readers the gist of why its lawsuit was dismissed -- no "reasonable reader" would take Esquire's satirical blog post about WND pulping Jerome Corsi's birther book seriously -- though it buries excerpts from the ruling with blather from Klayman. WND didn't tell readers, however, that the judges also pointed out that WND editor Joseph Farah "immediately recognized the blog post as a 'parody,' although he told The Daily Caller that in his view it was 'a very poorly executed' one" -- one of the reasons lower courts had dismissed WND's lawsuit, or that the judges ultimately ruled that Klayman had failed to state a legitimate claim.
Klayman added that in the current political environment, suggesting in any way that Obama might not be eligible would be career suicide for a jurist.
“These judges know that if they make an unpopular decision against the establishment that they will never be able to be promoted to the Supreme Court or any other position they might get through political patronage,” he said.
WND apparently doesn't realize that quoting such lunacy only makes Klayman appear even crazier -- and makes people wonder why WND has such trust in this incompetent lawyer.
NEW ARTICLE: James Hirsen, Right-Wing 'Media Analyst' Topic: Newsmax
Much of the Newsmax columnist's so-called media analysis is defending conservatives and bashing liberals. And that doesn't count his defenses of his buddy Mel Gibson. Read more >>
Craige McMillan writes in his Nov. 22 WorldNetDaily column:
Stacking a court with ideologically sympathetic judges isn’t a new strategy. During America’s earlier “never waste a good crisis” economic moment, known as the Great Depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, after being rebuffed by the Supreme Court for his efforts to expand government beyond its constitutional bounds, took another approach: He attempted to turn the nation’s highest court into a rubber stamp for his utopian dynasty.
The current White House occupant has no such compunctions about the monarchy, assuming he is the monarch. Note the similarities in mindset to many of the poorest African nations: Whoever becomes the “monarch” distributes the spoils to his followers.
Picking the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals as the packing victim was a good strategy for someone with disregard for the rule of law. Roosevelt was busted for his effort to stack the Supreme Court, so why not drop down one level and try it again? After all, the D.C. court decides lots of government-overreach lawsuits. Why not pack it with ideological sympathizers, so the answer is always the same: The feds can do anything they want, Constitution and all and the rest of you be damned!
The two examples McMillan provides are not remotely the same. FDR tried to add additional positions to the Supreme Court, while Obama is merely trying to fill already existing vacancies on a lower court.
McMillan also throws in some gratuitous birtherism:
You and the rest of the Republicans in the Senate can begin an investigation into the meaning of the term “natural born citizen,” as used during the period of history when the Constitution was written. You may actually find that the current White House occupant does not meet the constitutional requirements to hold the office of president.
Apparently McMillan hasn't noticed that even the website that publishes his columns has largely abandoned birther conspiracy theories.
MRC's Double Standard on MSNBC Hosts Saying Insulting Things Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center has been in high dudgeon lately over Martin Bashir's remarks about Sarah Palin, for which he has apologized. But a few years back, another MSNBC host who said something offensive got much different treatment.
In 2007, when Don Imus described the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed ho's," the MRC really didn't want to talk about it. Brent Bozell -- in an example of cowardice that rivaled his treatment of Rush Limbaugh's sleazy remarks about Sandra Fluke -- conceded only that Imus' words were "stupid," then desperately tried to change the subject: "But where were these people when the subject was gangsta rap? With these arrogant and profane multi-millionaires routinely insulting and deriding people, especially black women, with language one hundred-fold more offensive than anything that ever came out of the I-Man's mouth?" Bozell also hypocrically accused CBS of hypocrisy for canceling Imus' radio show over the controversy.
When Imus got a new radio gig, NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard cheered on Imus seeking to "avenge" his firing by going after "the group that disseminated transcripts of his broadcast concerning the Rutgers women's basketball team, Media Matters for America." Sheppard added: "Right-thinking Americans across the fruited plain should hope that Imus is going to make it a crusade to expose the various entities in this nation such as Media Matters and the Center for American Progress which are indeed nothing more than propaganda arms of the Clintons. Good luck, Don. Give ‘em hell!" Sheppard couldn't even be bothered to criticize Imus' offensive remarks.
Does this sound like an organization that has any moral authority to speak out against Bashir? Didn't think so.
Last week, WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein had a minor fit over "The lead pollster and main crafter of the marketing campaign for Obamacare" having "once explained that when selling health-care reform to the public 'perceptions are more important than facts and reason.'"
Klein won't tell you this, but that's exactly the same way WND has been selling its "black mob violence" narrative. It actually gives the game away in the editor's note on top of every Colin Flaherty article: It states that Flaherty is reporting on "what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse." Not an actual trend -- what merely appears to be one.
As one key aspect of Flaherty's "black mob violence" meme has gotten more media exposure recently -- the "knockout game" -- it was inevitable that Flaherty's narrative would start falling apart upon closer scrutiny:
The New York Times pointed out that "police officials in several cities where such attacks have been reported said that the 'game' amounted to little more than an urban myth, and that the attacks in question might be nothing more than the sort of random assaults that have always occurred." The Times added that "police officials cautioned that they had yet to see evidence of an organized game spreading among teenagers online, though they have been reluctant to rule out the possibility."
The Daily Beast criticized the "media panic" over "knockout game" coverage, highlighting its "strongly anecdotal" nature, adding: "The 'knockout game' may or may not be a new phenomenon, but with a few instances out of tens of thousands of assaults, it’s not a trend, and media outlets shouldn’t treat it as one. A few teens may describe their behavior as a game, but to hold them up as signs of a crime wave is to cherry-pick data and mislead the audience. A little incredulity, in other words, would go a long way."
Slate notes that Flaherty "made it his life's work to report any single crime perpetrated by a black person in the U.S. against a white person. In a recent blog post, he lists as evidence six separate crimes in Philadelphia over the course of two years, which share nothing in similarity except for the fact that they involved black people." Slatte adds:
Imagine if another national "journalist" started doing the same for, say, any crime committed in Alabama, or any arson charge in the country. People would start to think Alabama was going through a crime epidemic, or that arson was becoming all the rage with criminals. That would be ridiculous, because it's ridiculous to assume that a few unrelated counts of arson make arson an epidemic. But when you inject race into the equation, it conveniently aligns with the assumptions of people who happen to be racist. That's the sort of twisted logic that justifies why more than half of the U.S. prison population is made up by black and Hispanic people, even though they comprise a quarter of the total population.
Flaherty and WND are not taking the exposure of its ginned-up coverage lying down -- they're in panic mode and flailing to push back. An unbylined Nov. 25 article attacks the Times and Slate in such a dishonest manner that it's clear they're panicking.
Without directly quoting from the article, WND misleadingly asserts that the Times called the knockout game an "urban myth" without mentioning that it's police officials who are characterizing it that way. But that created enough of a straw man for Flaherty to slap down:
“The New York Times is trying to hijack the narrative by calling it an urban myth and classifying black mob violence in the same sphere as Big Foot and the Easter Bunny,” Flaherty told WND. “It won’t work. There’s too much video, there are too many victims, and there’ are too many people writing about it for it to simply go away.”
Flaherty said it’s “an urban fact at this point, no matter what the New York Times says.”
WND and Flaherty also attacked Slate -- again without quoting from the article, thus creating another straw man:
“If you use a lot of statistics when you talk about race, the liberals accuse you of stereotyping. If you leave the statistics out and just report stories, then they accuse you of cherry picking. So Slate wants it both ways. Slate loves to speak to people’s motivations on why all of us are producing stories like this, but I don’t care about that. All I care about are making sure my facts are right,” Flaherty rebutted.
“When people read ‘White Girl Bleed a Lot,’ they’re going to read a book with over 500 examples of recent black mob violence around the country, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. That’s just a plain fact,” Flaherty said.
The fact that WND and Flaherty have to be so dishonest about their critics demonstrates how little truth is behind their narrative. All they've done is compile unrelated, anecdotal incidents over several years and call it an "epidemic."
CNS' Starr Frowns On State Department's 'Transgender Day of Remembrance' Topic: CNSNews.com
Last week, CNSNews.com's Penny Starr was gay-baiting recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom by obsessing over the sexual orientation of two of them.
Starr followed that up with a Nov. 22 article freaking out over Secretary of State John Kerry marking a "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
While Starr played it straight and didn't report any anti-gay tirades, she's so anti-gay herself that this story's existence is a demonstration of her disapproval of the "Transgender Day of Remembrance."
Has CNS ever considered keeping reporters with strong personal views on certain subjects -- as Starr clearly does on gays and abortion -- from reporting "news" articles on those subjects? Apparently not, even though that's the standard CNS' parent, the Media Research Center, demands of the "liberal media."
Is WND Trying To Foment A Military Coup Against Obama? Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've documented how WorldNetDaily's Michael Maloof has been drafting crazy birther ex-generals to push his conspiracy theory that President Obama is systematically firing military commanders because ... well, who knows why? Now it appears there might be a method to Maloof's madness.
After one of them called for the “forced resignations” of President Obama and congressional leaders in response to multiple grievances, including the alleged political purge of hundreds of senior military officers, two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.
“America’s Provisional Leadership Council” will look at major concerns, as outlined by Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, in an eight-point paper titled “The Americans Project.”
Vallely told WND he sees The Americans Project as a “citizens’ commission” of prominent Americans to provide advice to legislative and executive branches of government.
America’s leaders, he said, will be “held to high standards of performance to solve the nation’s problems of governing. We will scrutinize and provide guidance to federally elected officials on behalf of the citizens.”
In calling for the forced resignations of Obama and the leadership of Congress, Vallely outlined suggestions for nationwide rallies and said a peaceful “civil uprising is still not out of question.”
The current crop of leaders, he said, must face a “demand resignation” process, which he explained requires massive grassroots protests and social networking which he envisions can be undertaken through his organization. And example of a “forced resignation,” he said, was that of President Richard Nixon.
“Our federal government continues down the path of destroying America,” Vallely said. “Americans must now stand up and put America back on the right track.”
Maloof is never going to admit it, but it appears that Vallely and Jones are trying to lay the groundwork for a military coup against Obama. Their creation of a "citizens commission" seems to be designed to give them cover to call their actions a "grassroots" campaign by regular Americans.
Maloof's descriiption of what the group plans to do once they take power sure looks like a military coup:
“Deceptive political intentions for the potential use of facilities, weapons, massive purchases of ammunition plus military-type vehicles and railroad cars are greatly objectionable to American citizens and an insult to the economic deficit of the nation,” they said.
DHS jobs could be given to the Department of Defense and the Interior Department, they claim. And FEMA would be recast as the National Emergency Agency with a reduction in manpower and merged into the Interior Department to be deployed during national emergencies.
“All weapons, munitions and military-type vehicles will be transferred to the DOD immediately,” they add.
Restricting "weapons, munitions and military-type vehicles" to the military? That's the very definition of the way a military junta behaves.
A "grassroots" campaign to overthrow the president led by former military commanders is all kinds of wrong -- if not actually treasonous. But Maloof won't tell you that.
Bozell Can't Quite Admit He's Heathering Scarborough Topic: Media Research Center
Brent Bozell is not done Heathering Joe Scarborough, it seems.
On the heels of a column completely dedicated to bashing Scarborough for not lying about Mitt Romney's bleak presidential prospects and, thus, putting right-wing ideology ahead of reality, Bozell cranked out an open letter after Scarborough said on a radio show that Bozell was "very angry" with him for pointing out incompetently run Republican campaigns. Bozell, of course, is pretending he's not:
It is amazing. There's not a single thing you said about me that is true. What amazes is that you know you're not telling the truth and still you say it.
-- I was never "very angry" with you for saying critical things about Romney. I am critical of you for writing books at night lecturing Republicans on how they can win while spending your mornings on that network of yours doing what hosts on that network do: trashing Republicans at every opportunity.
-- I was "very angry" at you for pointing out that Romney was a flip-flopper? Joe, Joe: Next you'll state I endorsed Obamacare. But since you raised the subject of flip-flops, try this one on for size: You savage conservatives on a regular basis, then rush to chest-thump: "I'm a conservative first!" Maybe it's not a flip-flop. Maybe it's just intellectual dishonesty and nothing else.
-- "Just like he defended John McCain, he was very angry when I was critical of John McCain." The only person who finds that assertion more ridiculous than I do would be John McCain.
-- "[T]his all started when I started criticizing George Bush in 2004 for his big spending Republicanism." You've said the same thing about Rush Limbaugh. And Sean Hannity. And Mark Levin. You said it to me, remember? And remember how I told you you were being ridiculous? You say that about anyone critical of you, including now me. Joe, tell me: Is it that you're foolish or is this just intellectual dishonesty -- again?
-- Of me you say, "There are a lot of people in Washington DC who love establishment Republicans and make a lot of money churning up controversy, and basically say, "Be on our side no matter what." Joe, open the windows at MSNBC. The sound you'll hear in the distance is Capitol Hill erupting in laughter.
-- "He never criticizes me on ideology." Good Lord, how direct must I be to register on that score? More intellectual dishonesty. (Are we seeing a trend here, Joe?)
-- And finally, in this short exchange you find a way to suggest three times that I'm "very angry" with you. I'm not, Joe.
You're not worth it.
Needless to say, the fact that Bozell felt the need to crank out this open letter is all the evidence one needs to see that he is, in fact, very angry with Scarborough. What Bozell is attacking as "intellectual dishonesty" is his own refusal to acknowledge reality: Scarborough appears to be right about his criticism of the presidential campaigns of McCain and Romney given that both candidates lost.
Also note that Bozell never specifically denies that he wants Scarborough to lie about conservatives in order to preserve their chances of winning. It's so obvious that he does, even if he doesn't want it put in those words.
It is Heathering, pure and simple. Bozell should just acknowledge it.
WND Turns To Right-Wing AAPS Associate To Bash Obamacare Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Minor writes in a Nov. 24 WorldNetDaily article:
A New York neurologist is warning of a dangerous problem with government databases that are declaring people dead when they are very much alive.
Dr. Lawrence Huntoon, a board-certified neurologist in Derby, N.Y., told WND with the growing trend to use, collect and maintain large databases, the government is establishing a system where anything can be claimed medically about a person whether it is true or not.
“The problem is once wrong information gets into the electronic database, it’s very difficult to get it corrected or get it out of there,” Huntoon sid. “What happens is the flawed data is now spread more efficiently among different agencies, and that’s not good.”
Huntoon has also attacked what he calls "sham peer review" of physicians -- ironic, since meaningful peer review of the journal he heads would have kept things like the leprosy error from showing up.
The fact that Huntoon is so closely affiliated with such a fringe group should disqualify him from being any sort of expert. But then, WND already runs a weekly column by his AAPS colleague Lee Hieb, so such things don't matter.
Matt Philbin Has Issues Topic: Media Research Center
As he established when he tweeted sleazy things about Sandra Fluke, the Media Research Center's Matt Philbin has issues with women who take birth control -- in his mind, they're nothing but sluts.
On Nov. 12, Philbin tweeted: "Then the birth control fairy came and gave all the good composite girls #hosurance, and they whored happily ever after."That came amidst a series of sneering, misogynist tweets about "hosurance."
As the comment thread on theh tweet indicates, we attempted to pin down whether he thinks all women who use birth control are sluts or just all women who get their birth control through Obamacare, but we were not successful.
On Nov 20, Philbin's idea to "rebrand Obamacare" was the slogan "Insured girls are easy." Again, we tried to find out why he thinks women who take birth control are "easy," but Philbin refused to give a straight answer.
We'd question why the MRC continues to hire such a misogynist, but it appears that his continued employment there constitutes endorsement of his slut-shaming.
WND Unhappy '12 Years A Slave' Accurately Depicts People Using Bible to Justify Slavery Topic: WorldNetDaily
Drew Zahn's Nov. 17 WorldNetDaily review of "12 Years A Slave" is lavish with praise for the movie ... except for the part about how it tells how pro-slavery forces used the Bible to justify slavery. Why? Because if that gets around, people might stop believing the Bible:
Even more troubling, however, was the film’s frequent assault on the Bible.
I won’t say “assault on Christianity,” per se, for the faith of the slaves in the film was often a balm, a positive influence in times of need.
But on multiple occasions in “12 Years a Slave,” a white plantation owner is seen reading or quoting the Bible to his slaves while in the background or voiceover you hear his slaves being whipped, screaming or otherwise suffering.
Yes, the Bible was twisted by many to justify slavery. That’s a part of American history. It’s a shameful part to be sure.
But again, I ask: What impact does this depiction have on audiences today?
My concern is that it paints Southern Christianity – which prizes the words of Scripture and the value of the gospel – if not all of biblical Christianity, as inherently hypocritical. It turns the Bible-quoters into villains, when the Bible-quoters are actually holding out the greatest hope for America today.
Director Steve McQueen draws a brilliant picture, but I’m concerned he paints with way too broad a brush here. After all, belief in the Bible laid the foundation for America’s fundamental beliefs in equality and the value of every individual. It was the biblical faith of William Wilberforce that led him to campaign tirelessly against slavery and see it outlawed in the British Empire.
It really all boils down to this: American slavery was a shameful, abhorrent practice. It violated in the most basic and obvious ways the Christian principles upon which this nation was founded and the virtues of freedom and equality those principles engendered.
But how do we in 2013 handle this shame?
“12 Years a Slave” rips the scabs off the wound – and all the more effectively for how well it’s made – but what are we going to do with the fresh bleeding? I’m doubtful most Americans will see from “12 Years a Slave” that our healing and redemption comes in Christ. I’m concerned the way the Bible is depicted in it, that modern Americans will run further from the healing we need, rather than nearer.
Zahn might also be concerned that conservative Christians using the Bible to justify discrimination against gays -- a driving force at WND -- will be perceived in the same light as those who used the Bible to justify slavery. He obviously can't have that.
This is what happens when people like Zahn put adherence to an ideology before anything else.
CNS Obsesses Over Obama Photo Shoot From 6 Years Ago Topic: CNSNews.com
Yes, CNSNews.com really did devote a Nov. 21 article by Barbara Boland to this subject:
On June 20, 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination at the time, hosted a “portrait session” in his U.S. Senate office where he posed for and with Terry Richardson, a man already well-known, as the flyleaf of a coffee-table collection of his work put it, as the photographer who “took 1970s porn esthetic and made it fashion chic.”
Not just your average article, mind you -- Boland cranks out nearly 2,000 words to complain about Richardson's photographic career, complete with pictures of photos from a Richardson artbook complete with pink sticky notes covering the naughty bits.
But why bother to do this article in the first place? This is the kind of desperate, petty guilt-by-association smear that belongs in the waning days of a campaign (like CNS' failed freakout over sexual content in novels written by Virginia Senate candidate Jim Webb in 2006, apparently unable to separate fiction from reality), not hurled at a president who won re-election and will never run for office again.
Boland made clear in her article that she really wants some answers to her petty attack, dammit:
CNSNews.com also sent the following questions to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:
1) Was then-Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign or Senate staff familiar with Terry Richardson reputation for “porn chic” photography before they scheduled Obama’s 2007 “portrait session” with Richardson? If not, why not?
2) Does President Obama regret that the campaign let that “portrait session” take place?
3) Does President Obama believe that Terry Richardson’s photography degrades women?
4) Given the credibility he helped give to Richardson by posing for and with him, do you believe President Obama should express regret for having done so given the sexually graphic nature of Richardson’s photography and the way he presents women?
Despite several phone calls and e-mails over the course of four days, the White House did not respond.
Boland appears not tyo have considered the possibility that the White House saw her attempt to smear Obama for what it was and treated her inquiry with the lack of respect it deserved.
There are plenty of grounds for impeachment. A best-selling book by a Texas congressman spells some of them out. Curiously, he is silent on the central ground of impeachment: that Mr Obama continues to display a bad forgery of a Hawaiian birth certificate on the White House website.
I call Hawaiigate the central ground of impeachment for two reasons. First, the dishonesty is shameless and in your face. Mr Obama’s advisers, once they realized the “birth certificate” was as bogus as a $3 bill, knew that if they simply went on pretending that $3 bills are legal tender the hard-left-dominated news media would carefully and continuously look the other way, pausing occasionally to sneer at anyone who pointed out that, in this constitutionally crucial respect, the “president” has no clothes.
Contrast this shoddy, lying administration with that of the first man to grace the office that Mr. Obama now occupies. George Washington “could not tell a lie.” Barry Soetero, or whatever his real name is, cannot tell the truth. That observation is a measure of how far America under the “Democrats” has fallen from the high ideals and the noble example of the founding president of the United States.
On any objective test, Mr. Obama should not merely be impeached: he should be imprisoned. But no one will do anything to bring him to book. Corruption by inaction is the most corrosive corruption of all.
-- Christopher Monckton, Nov. 5 WorldNetDaily column
The political stench of Obamacare is just getting started. As the pain of Obamacare broadens and deepens, Democrats will soon be referring to right now as “the good old days”! One reason exposed liars don’t do well in politics is, we don’t like liars. This is worse. These Obama lies are heavy with pain for the voter. Did any Watergate lie cause real public pain? Did Iran-Contra cause any voter to lose his health insurance? The difference between the lies of Obama and the lies of any other president is the difference between a harmless snake and a poisonous snake, or summer lightning and streak lightning. Or, as Mark Twain most famously said, it’s the difference between lightning and the lightning bug.
Speaking of the imposter in the Oval Office, it wasn’t that long ago that liberals used to insist that George W. Bush was avenging his father by going after Saddam Hussein. And yet they never even mention the far likelier scenario that Barack Hussein Obama is avenging himself on his drunken, communist, father’s sworn enemies – namely, the white race, Western civilization, Christians, Jews, all non-Muslims and capitalists.
What America needs is a shadow government. A single place where the “outside the beltway” party sets its own policy and with that policy drives the news agenda. (Remember, there are only two political parties.)
When John Kerry sets down Obama’s golf clubs while the Hawaiian performs the Kenyan sandbox dance and tosses the ball back out onto the fairway, and then issues a foreign-policy pronouncement, shadow.gov swings into action.
They immediately announce a pro-American policy, issue a statement as to why the Kenyan’s policy is bad for America, and urge him not to cheat at his golf game.
Well, it’s finally happened. We have reached the point where it has become so evident that President Barack Hussein Obama is just this side of evil incarnate and that his administration and radical leftists in Congress are constitutional criminals that those who continue to support them and their policies are either ideologically kindred (and thus, enemies of the republic), or so pitifully dim that they may not merit rescue from a burning building. No … I think I’ll save that dog over there; at least he may wind up being of benefit to humankind someday …
Thus, I believe that these supporters – whether politicos, press, or rank-and-file voters – have forfeited the right to be taken in any way seriously.
If what you’re looking for is impeachment or resignation or a president who dares not leave his bunker, hatching time is a ways off and potatoes are still underground and not on the menu yet. My aspirations are a little more grab-able. I’ll gladly settle for an end to President Obama’s ability to inflict further damage on America.
Over here, waiter! This is the table that’s ready for the champagne.
As those folks see it, if something good happens, it’s because of God. But when something terrible – such as the Holocaust or childhood leukemia – occurs, they explain that God moves in mysterious ways, and we mere mortals can’t hope to divine His motives.
Well, OK, He’s God, and if He created the heavens, the stars, the earth and all of its inhabitants, including dogs, elephants and giraffes, it might be expedient to cut Him some slack. But when we’re talking about an arrogant narcissist whose major achievement was being a shill for ACORN, which is a lot like being a union organizer but without the requisite muscle, why would anyone fawn over this lying jackass?
Here we have two men (Obama and Holder) of the same ideological bent and operational modality facing the greatest challenges of their tenure of their offices. Both employ the imperious autocracy that occasionally meanders into the area of tyranny in Obama’s case. Unfortunately for them, these traits no longer appear to be serving them as well as in the past. With regard to Obamacare, the president’s lie was so monstrous and its effects so lingering that he may never live it down.
It is an even bet that behind the scenes, given Obama’s newfound vulnerability, his past transgressions – some of which are indeed criminal – are now being considered in a very different light by his heretofore timid political opponents.
While the current furor over Eric Holder’s alleged actions had its genesis some time ago, it is arguable that the recent decision of congressional Republicans to move forward with their case against him is largely political opportunism. If Republican lawmakers are looking toward Obama’s impeachment or other methods by which they might effectively render his position untenable, then Holder would certainly be a good man to have out of the way prior to initiating such effort.
MRC's Drennen: Obama Should've Said 'Under God' Even Though Gettysburg Address Draft He Read Didn't Say That Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center is never going to admit that its attacks on President Obama over the Gettysburg Address.
In the wake of Tim Graham obsessing over Obama not saying the words "under God" in reciting the Gettysburg Address for a Ken Burns video project -- and failing to tell his readers that Burns specifically asked Obama to read an early draft of the address thatdid not contain those words -- Kyle Drennen does the same thing in a Nov. 21 MRC item:
On Tuesday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams noted President Obama and the four former living presidents reciting the Gettysburg Address to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's historic speech, but ignored the fact that Obama omitted the phrase "under God" from his reading and refused to attend the event marking the anniversary. [Listen to the audio]
Williams made a point of declaring that project orchestrated by documentary filmmaker Ken Burns was "urging Americans to memorize and celebrate the Gettysburg Address," and emphasized: "Considering it's one of the most important speeches in American history, think about this, it was only about two minutes long, 272 words in all." Making Obama's gaffe of skipping two of those words all the more noticeable and embarrassing.
Unlike Graham, Drennen did note that Obama read an early draft of the address -- which contradicts his assertion that Obama committed a "gaffe." But Drennen decided that was no excuse:
The White House has claimed that President Obama simply read a copy of the speech provided by Burns – a written draft preserved by White House staffer John Nicolay that did not include "under God," something Lincoln added extemporaneously.
The obvious question that arises from that explanation is why would you have people recite different versions of a speech you're encouraging people to memorize word for word? In addition, it's the anniversary of the speech Lincoln actually uttered on November 19, 1863, not the anniversary of when a draft of the speech was written.
Instead of berating Obama for reading something exactly as written, Drennen should let go of his Obama derangement and start behaving like the "researcher" he's supposed to be and take the question up with Burns himself.
WND's Maloof Trots Out Crazy Birther Ex-General for Obama-Bashing Encore Topic: WorldNetDaily
Here's another sign Michael Maloof's conspiracy theory that President Obama is systematically firing military commanders is falling apart -- he brings back one of his favorite crazy ex-generals for more baseless conspiracy-mongering.
In a Nov. 19 WND article, Maloof touts how retired Gen. Paul Vallely "is calling for the “forced resignations” of President Obama, other administration officials and the leadership of Congress for the direction they’re taking the nation, his list of grievances including the systematic political purge of hundreds of senior military officers in the U.S. military."
As we pointed out the last time Maloof cited him, Vallely is a crazy birther whose opinion on Obama is severely clouded by his obvious hatred for the president.
If all Maloof has to back up his conspiracy theory is crazy ex-generals and anonymous, unverifiable sources, there clearly is nothing to see here -- not that Maloof won't stop trying to convince you otherwise.