A Jan. 18 WorldNetDaily article touts how touts how Arizona lawmakers have bought into the Obama birther conspiracy by proposing a law "that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency." But WND has been curiously silent about a very prominent congressional candidate who appears to be buying in as well.
Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for a special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, reportedly suggested in a 2008 interview that Barack Obama was born out of wedlock. This is something that WND has been hinting at for months, with its own repeated suggestions that Barack Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama's parents, were not living together has husband and wife at the time of Obama's birth.
Brown's spokesman has since walked back the claim. But WND has curiously avoided any mention of Brown's claim, even though the issue is very much in its wheelhouse, to put it mildly (a more accurate description might be hate-fueled obsession). It is in a perfect position to set Brown right on the issue of Obama's birth, yet it has not done so. Why?
Perhaps because, deep down, WND editor Joseph Farah knows that birtherism is the kiss of death for most politicians, and would certainly be so for Brown if he were to be associated with it. So we get the treat of Farah, in his Jan. 19 column on Brown, being completely silent about Brown's birtherism. Why? Because he wants Brown to win today and further instigate what he calls "the end of the Democratic Party."
That seems to show that even Farah doesn't believe the birther bullshit his website peddles -- or that he simply doesn't have the courage of his convictions to either publicly embrace Brown's birtherism or criticize his walkback (at least not before the election).