Phil Elmore writes in his Sept. 3 WorldNetDaily column that President Obama is "brittle" and "oversensitive" and "cannot abide criticism," while his supporters regularly express "their deep and abiding outrage over those who've had the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to question the Obama administration's motley crew of radical left-wing advisers, czars, consultants, and bureaucrats." Elmore goes on to take a swing at us in the process:
A tiny blog called ConWebWatch even granted me their "Obama Derangement Award" for daring to question the president's desire to control your day-to-day communications and speech.
Elmore howled in a paranoid manner about "Glorious Leader Obama" endeavoring "to place his Orwellian visage on the telescreens of the nation's media outlets" so that "citizens are inundated with the inevitability of Obama's increasingly statist rule."
Elmore linked to WND's oft-repeatedlie that Obama wants to create an army of, in Elmore's words, "fascist brownshirts."
Elmore asserted that Obama "Twitters his daily enemies list through his Blackberry while waiting for his latest firearms prohibitions to be uploaded to iTunes as podcasts."
Elmore complained that Obama "appointed a chief information officer (a post that sounds disturbingly similar to some form of propaganda ministry, in title if not in fact)" -- apparently unaware that nearly every organization or business of significant size employs a chief information officer, which has nothing to do with propaganda.
There's a huge difference between "daring to question" Obama and making crazy, factually challenged statements about him. Too bad Elmore doesn't see the difference. Indeed, Elmore provides a link in his current column to radio host and conspiracytheorist Alex Jones, which serves as more evidence of Elmore's own unhinged approach.
Elmore seems to be unaware that the right to criticize and question others sets in motion the right of others to criticize and question you. And if you're making false claims and using unhinged rhetoric, expect to be criticized for it.
That's our job. If Elmore can dish it out, he should be able to take it.
WND Misleads on White House Archiving Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Sept. 2 WorldNetDaily article by Chelsea Schilling falsely portrays the scope of archiving the Obama White House plans to do of archiving its presence on social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace.
Schilling uncritically repeats claims by the National Legal and Policy Center that the White House "is hiring a contractor to harvest information about Americans from its pages on social networking websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, YouTube and Flickr."
In fact, as the right-wing Hot Air has detailed, the NLPCs claims are faulty:
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) essentially requires each administration to keep every pixel and keystroke ever published for later review by Congress or investigators, in case illegal activity takes place. We have seen this invoked ex post facto to the Clinton and Bush administrations, in the latter over e-mails sent and received outside the White House mail system. At that time, legal experts and investigators insisted that everything produced by an administration for anything remotely concerning official business had to be archived within the EOP.
A more careful reading of this RFP shows that to be the project. The contract directs the contractor to archive the “information posted on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP maintains a presence“, including social networking sites like MySpace, Twitter, and so on. It doesn’t call for everything on those networks to be archived, but only “information posted by non-EOP persons on publicly-accessible web sites where the EOP maintains a presence[,] both comments posted on pages created by EOP and messages sent to EOP accounts on those web sites.” In other words, the archiving will include interaction on EOP websites and pages, but not anything else.
The headline of Schilling's article -- "On Facebook, MySpace? Obama's got your e-mail; White House spammer-in-chief wants contractor to track critics" -- manages not only to falsely suggest that the White House wants to collect information about everyone on those sites, it falsely suggests that the White House is specifically targeting its critics, something for which there is absoulutely no evidence.
A Sept. 4 WND article by Aaron Klein repeats the NLPC's faulty analysis, again falsely suggesting that the White House wants to gather information on all users, not just interactions with White House pages on those sites.
NewsReal joins the right-wing freak-out over a speech by President Obama to schoolchildren with a Sept. 3 post by Joseph Klein:
The Obama forces are getting desperate. They are using Saul Alinsky’s tactics for radicals against sincere Americans concerned with the direction in which Obama is taking the country.
This is right out of Alinsky Rules Eight and Twelve: “Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize…Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.”
The President is also hoping to influence voters through their children. This is a version of Alinsky’s Rule Eight – “As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.” The children are Obama’s new flank, as he delivers a broadcast live via the White House’s Web site to the nation’s school children just a day before his address to Congress.
Schools are being strongly encouraged to have their students watch the speech and have been given training materials to use with the kids as a follow-up. Students will be asked to ponder such questions as: “What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?”
With their parents watching the President’s prime time speech on health care the following night, will it be a mere coincidence if their kids start bugging them about what they plan to do to help the President?
It looks like Obama is adding another rule to the Alinsky set: ”Exploit the children to sell your arguments.”
Before Klein goes off the deep end with this, he might want to see what his boss, David Horowitz, is up to:
Americans - your friends and neighbors - do not fully realize the radical changes Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress are foisting upon our way of life!
But you do. And I do as well. Today the Obamaites, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid - the small but powerful group of left-wing radicals who are at the controls of this transformation are all disciples of the 1960s radical Saul Alinsky. Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, was the Little Red Book for the college radicals of the 1960s. I know, I was one of them.
I am writing a new booklet that I must blanket on college campuses as the new school year starts. This booklet - "Alinsky's Rules for Obama's Radicalism" - paints a clear picture of Barack Obama's agenda for our nation. And we have prepared an advertisement to run in papers around the country calling on Americans to derail this train before it's too late.
I urgently need your support. Will you help the Freedom Center with a contribution of $25, $50 or $100 would help lift us out of our budget emergency; $1,000 would be a terrific aid to getting our ads in newspapers and my new booklet published.
So, Horowitz is using Alinskyite tactics to accuse Obama of ... using Alinskyite tactics. And is writing "a new booklet" that he "must blanket on college campuses" -- that is, in Klein's words, exploit the children -- to do so.
Horowitz needs to explain why, if Alinsky's tactics are so horrible, he's using them too.
Taitz Still Filing Frivolous Lawsuits; WND Still Silent Topic: WorldNetDaily
Orly Taitz apparently remains persona non grata at WorldNetDaily -- it still hasn't reported on her activities since she promoted the discredited "Kenyan birth certificate" that WND touted without bothering to verify its authenticity beforehand. Wonder if WND will ever have the guts to tell its readers why it has decided to ignore Taitz, despite their longtime symbiotic relationship.
Too bad, because Taitz has filed a new lawsuit on behalf of another soldier who refuses to fulfill her military obligations because of purported "irreparable injury due to forced and involuntary compliance with unlawful and/or unconstitutionally rendered orders" because Obama's citizenship hasn't been verified to her satisfaction.
The filing is quite entertaining -- not the least of which is the reference to "the monstrosity of being compelled to wage war under an illegal dictator compared by many and actually comparable to Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Idi Amin, and Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier" -- but this passage caught our eye:
Plaintiff submits that the reservations under which she would be forced to act if she were forced and required against her will to obey the orders for her to serve this President are neither conjectural nor speculative nor merely based on opinion or doubt.
Rather the vast preponderance of the credible evidence, all of the clear and convincing evidence, and some facts indicate beyond reasonable doubt that the President is an alien, possibly even an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien (admitted just a few days ago, by United States Representative Diane Watson of California’s 33rd Congressional District to have been born in Kenya), without so much as lawful residency in the United States. Some of the relevant evidence is shown in Exhibit B (Affidavit of Neal Sankey with attachments) and Exhibit B (August 1, 2009 released copy of Kenya Birth Certificate).
Yes, Taitz is submitting as evidence the discredited "Kenyan birth certificate," even though her former fawning admirers at WND have discredited it.
Also note that Taitz is claiming that Obama is "an unnaturalized or even an unadmitted illegal alien" based on a statement by Rep. Watson (which Taitz does not detail further). What Taitz is apparently referring to is this statement by Watson: "People look at the United States as a country that has changed it's way and elected someone from Kenya and Kansas, I'll put it like that."
Which, of course, is evidence of exactly nothing. It's a statement about diversity, not a legally admissible claim about Obama's parentage.
WND has taken the occasional stride in debunking the most obviously false birth certificate-related claims -- for instance, a Sept. 2 article by Jerome Corsi arguing that a "Kenyan birth certificate" being offered for sale on eBay is a forgery. Why won't WND demonstrate that it truly is, in Joseph Farah's words, "beholden only to the truth" by telling the truth about Orly Taitz instead of silently cutting ties?
Cashill Still Peddling Killer's Sob Story Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill's Sept. 3 WorldNetDaily column is, in most part, a letter from current Cashill cause celebre Steven Nary, who's serving a prison sentence for killing a man in 1996. Cashill declared that Nary "unintentionally killed" man.
Yeah, choking a guy for "not more than five minutes" was totally unintentional. Lying to the police was apparently unintentional too.
Erik Rush: Obama Just Like O.J. Simpson Topic: WorldNetDaily
What do you do for an encore after you've called the attorney general a piece of shit and the president a prison rapist? If you're Erik Rush, you liken the president to a murderer. From Rush's Sept. 3 WorldNetDaily column:
Football legend and actor O.J. Simpson was a truly beloved American icon. The quintessential American success story, he projected an amicable, wholesome, larger-than-life figure. His triumphs were even more noteworthy because he was a black man who had risen to fame and fortune during the Civil Rights Movement era.
In 1995, Simpson was put on trial for the murders of Nicole Brown (his second ex-wife) and a male friend. As a result, authorities and the press were able to delve into his affairs as no one had previously done. Only then did Americans learn that he was a beast and a brute, an obsessively controlling, chronic wife beater, emotional abuser and philanderer. In short, he was a pathological narcissist for whom whimsy, pleasure and image were paramount. Worse, his behavior had been validated and reinforced by the fact that he had been catered to by those around him, personally and professionally, for decades. After beating the murder rap, Simpson continued to manipulate and bully those around him. Twelve years later, his capricious conduct earned him a lengthy prison sentence for numerous firearms charges, robbery, burglary, assault and kidnapping.
Many Americans, and even a few trained in behavioral science, have identified President Obama as a deeply pathological narcissist. He has also managed to masterfully control his environment. While his detractors contend that his façade has been maintained by a complicit press, this may only be partially true. According to experts, the profoundly narcissistic frequently astonish casual observers when the extent of control they have been able to maintain over their environment (primarily, people close to them) is finally revealed.
NewsBusters Posts Misleading Pat Boone Column Topic: NewsBusters
Is Pat Boone a NewsBuster now? It appears so -- he has his own account and everything.
Unfortunately, Boone's first post for NewsBusters is a column from June that, as we detailed at the time, contains several quotes of President Obama that were either taken out of context to distort their meaning or are paraphrases of Obama (which are also taken out of context), not direct quotes as Boone portrays them.
Is a column full of false and misleading quotes really what NewsBusters wants to publish, even if it's from Pat Boone?
WND, NewsBusters Freak Out Over Obama Address to Schoolchildren Topic: NewsBusters
You wouldn't think a speech by President Obama would be such a big deal. But he's making one to schoolchildren, and that has sent the ConWeb into a frenzy:
Parents across the country are rebelling against plans by President Barack Obama to speak directly to their children through the classrooms of the nation's public schools without their presence, participation and approval.
The plans announced by Obama also have been cited as raising the specter of the Civilian National Security Force, to which he's referred several times since his election campaign began, but never fully explained.
"He's recruiting his civilian army. His 'Hitler' youth brigade," wrote one participant in a forum at Free Republic.
-- Bob Unruh, Sept. 1 WorldNetDaily article (oh, and Obama has in fact explained his "Civilian National Security Force"; Unruh and WND have failed to report it to their readers)
As many parents are focused on back to school clothes and supplies, the royal Czar Czar prepares to circumvent parental authority and speak directly to our children in one week. What will he command?
This much is certain, the entire cadre of Ombud children will be having a parent sanctioned skip day September 8th, but that's not enough. The public and the media need to demand that a transcript of this speech be made available before the weekend. Yes you can.
Great news. Our leader will be addressing all schoolchildren on September 8th. And the Department of Education has helpfully prepared a menu of activities for the day. As you'll note above, 7-12th graders are to view quotations from Pres. Obama, discuss them, and strive to understand what "the president believes is important" for students to be successful in school.
Wonderful. But why stop with students? Shouldn't Americans of all ages have the benefit of the President's wisdom? And why limit it to one day, and only to the topic of education?
Will our MSM report on the interesting parallel between our president's plan for our children and the approach of another Great Leader from the past?
They're not the only ones. In fact, Obama will be speaking to schoolchildren about the importance of education and persisting and succeeding in school. Unruh and "Ombud" do not explain why that's so offensive to them, nor do they explain why it was apparently OK for President George H.W. Bush to issue a similar address in 1991, or for President George W. Bush to post a "teacher's guide" on the White House website.
Who Else Uses WND's Mailing List? Topic: WorldNetDaily
As we've noted, the folks at The Next Right have the idea of boycotting anyone who supports WorldNetDaily by renting its email list. We've also noted that one renter is the Republican National Committee. We've also noted that among the groups renting WND's mailing list is the Republican National Committee.
We are on WND's "Carefully Selected Offers from Third Parties" mailing list (for now, anyway). Here's a list of political groups that have rented out the list since Aug. 1:
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily Richard Bartholomew details WorldNetDaily's derision of Muslim conspiracy theories when WND has a long history of promoting "all manner of absurd conspiracy theories when it suits editor Joseph Farah."
WJC's Misleading, Tasteless Kennedy-Bashing Topic: Western Journalism Center
An Aug. 28 Western Journalism Center video, called "The Real Ted Kennedy," begins with a minute of snippets of various media tributes. These are followed by this image:
Which is immediately followed by this tasteless photo:
In this video, the WJC is suggesting that Chappaquiddick was never mentioned during coverage of Kennedy's death, but offers no evidence to back up its suggestion -- perhaps because it knows the claim is utterly false, as anyone who watched even part of the coverage knows.
It's worth noting that the WJC is using the YouTube account of Expose Obama, which is operated by Floyd Brown, the right-wing operative who also runs the WJC. This comingling of resources (is that legal?) tells us what we suspected would happen: that the WJC under Brown would be little more than a partisan slash-and-burn operation -- not that it wasn't that when Joseph Farah ran the WJC.
UPDATE: The WJC followed up in the same hateful vein with an email sent out on WorldNetDaily's mailing list and signed by Floyd Brown. In it, Brown asserts that "Ted Kennedy probably did more than any political figure of his generation to weaken and corrupt America," "supported every so-called 'gay-rights' bill that perversity could generate," and blaimed the defeat of Robert Bork for the Supreme Court on "Kennedy, People for the American Way, the National Organization for Women, and a gang of crazies." Brown sarcastically closes: "Thanks, Teddy, for the 47 great years. We'll do everything possible to see that you won't have one more victory this fall. "
Posted by Terry K.
at 12:07 PM EDT
Updated: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 11:52 PM EDT
James Walsh continues his pattern of misleading smears in his Aug. 31 Newsmax column, this time once again targeting immigrants. But first, a little demagoguery of President Obama:
The Obama campaign for change was designed to move the United States from its discriminatory past to a secular-progressive Utopia. It’s good to recall that in George Orwell’s utopian barnyard, some animals were “more equal than others”. A borderless nation, universal healthcare, energy taxes to end climate change, and reconciliation in lieu of war make up the Obama administration’s 21st century agenda. The president and his radical Democrat supporters rely on simple slogans, political operatives, a pliant newsmedia, a sycophant academia to exploit racial frustrations, and class warfare. Not in vain did Obama study at the knee of Saul Alinsky, architect of the anarchy that has come to be known as Chicago politics.
Alinsky died with Obama was 11, and there's no evidence whatsoever the two ever met, let alone that Obama "studied at the knee" of Alinsky.
Walsh is particularly upset that Obama "received 74 percent of the Hispanic vote, in return for his support of comprehensive immigration reform with a 'pathway to citizenship' for illegal aliens and their extended families," which Walsh baselessly depicts as "amnesty."
Walsh claims that Obama faces an "immigration dilemma" because "The Obama administration realizes that U.S. citizens are opposed to benefits, including medical care, for foreign nationals in this country illegally, while immigrant advocates demand healthcare coverage for illegal aliens in the current bills." He then claims that a ban on illegal immigrants receiving benefits under health care reform is "a ruse, for Obama plans to put 'undocumented' aliens on a pathway to citizenship, thus solving the dilemma, even if it bankrupts the country."
Walsh also plays fast and loose with numbers, writing, "Immigration advocates place the number of illegal aliens from all nations at 11 million to 12.5 million. Other demographers put the number at from 20 million to 36 million undocumented immigrants." Walsh doesn't state who those "demographers" are who support that much higher figure -- meanwhile, the federal government and even the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies back up the lower number.
Nevertheless, Walsh treats the higher number as accurate: "Of the estimated 47 million uninsured in the U.S., nearly half may be in the country illegally." But even conservatives who consider that estimate to be inaccurate, like CNSNews.com, claim that the number includes "9.73 million foreigners" -- which includes people here illegally.
Walsh concludes with a little more fearmongering: "The double whammy of universal healthcare and comprehensive immigration reform during a recession could signal the end of the United States as the Founding Fathers envisioned it." We're pretty sure Walsh's racially based fearmongering and misinformation aren't doing much for the republic, either.
Joseph Farah is, unsurprisingly, angry and defiant about The Next Right's call to boycott WorldNetDaily and those who support it through advertising or renting its mailing list (like the Republican National Committee). Farah's Sept. 1 column on the subject, however, serves as an example of why The Next Right would be moved to such a boycott.
Farah dismisses the Next Right writer, Jon Henke, as "this fellow I have never known nor associated with nor even heard of," then misportrays Henke's post, claiming he was moved to support a boycott solely "because of an article he read in the Boston Herald last week." It's clear from Henke's post that the Herald article was merely the last straw, not the entire reason.
Farah then complains that the Boston Herald article in question offered only a "partial quote," taken "out-of-context," of a Feb. 1 WND article by Jerome Corsi suggesting that the federal government wants "to create the type of detention center" that "could be used as concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany." Corsi, Farah insisted, offered a "much more nuanced and accurate statement."
Uh, not really. Actual nuance would have required Corsi to tell all sides of the story -- not just what "those concerned about use of the military in domestic affairs" but what the sposnor of the bill in question, Rep. Alcee Hastings, has said about it.
On Jan. 22 -- nine days before Corsi's article was published -- Hastings issued a press release on his sponsorship of the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act, which would 'create six National Emergency Centers throughout the United States to better respond to national emergencies":
The Centers would provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance, including education for individuals and families displaced due to an emergency. In addition, the Centers will also serve as a centralized location for the training and coordination of first responders in the instance of an emergency.
"The lack of natural disaster preparedness efforts and temporary housing options for disaster-stricken citizens has only exacerbated an unbearable situation. Deficient recovery responses have led to elongated recovery rates in my district and across this nation," said Congressman Hastings.
"We have an obligation to better prepare and more adequately respond to the needs of communities hit by natural disasters. We have a responsibility to ensure that basic needs of disaster victims are met immediately following the devastation. Our nation was not prepared for the disastrous hurricanes that struck Florida and the Gulf Coast in 2004 and in 2005. The enactment of this legislation will help to ensure that our government is able to adequately respond to families and individuals displaced due to an emergency."
Corsi reported none of this. Instead, the only quote of Hastings in his article was of a 2008 statement critical of Sarah Palin -- which is completely irrelevant to the bill in question. Corsi's only goal in this article was to ridicule Hastings and fearmonger about the bill he introduced.
It's disingenous for Farah to claim that Corsi offered a "nuanced" interpretation of the bill when the Nazi-concentration-camp description is the only interpretation he offered.
Nevertheless, Farah took potshots at anyone who dared to repeat Henke's post (like we did over at Media Matters), then mounted an even more disingenous defense of WND:
I didn't found WorldNetDaily to be esteemed by my colleagues.
I didn't found it to make People for the American Way or Media Matters happy.
I didn't found it because I wanted to be part of the "conservative" movement.
I founded it because there was a crying need for an independent brand of journalism beholden only to the truth.
So, he's taking the "you can't handle the truth!" approach so beloved by true believers and conspiracy theorists. He also seems to think I'm part of the "Republican establishment" and aligned with the RNC. This is an interesting argument, considering the fact that I'm trying to get the RNC to stop working with Joseph Farah.
West Laments Immigration by Non-Whites to U.S. Topic: Washington Examiner
Add Diana West to the list of people who blame Ted Kennedy for letting non-white people into the country.
In her Aug. 30 Washington Examiner column, West cites as an example of "the rest of the Kennedy legacy": "The first legislation he managed as a U.S. Senator, the 1965 Immigration Act, effectively tipped the immigrant pool of this nation from Europe to the Third World."
As we've detailed, pre-1965 immigration law was largely driven by racism and eugenics, effectively limiting immigration to only those from northern Europe. Some conservatives seek a return to that restrictive pre-1965 immigration law. Is West one of them?
WND Fearmongers Over Swine Flu Vaccine Topic: WorldNetDaily
Is WorldNetDaily trying to kill Americans by instilling fear of a swine flu vaccine? It seems so.
An Aug. 31 WND article touting the latest Jerome Corsi Red Alert report claims that "he White House trying to cause a panic over a possible H1N1 virus that could inflict massive illness and death on the American people." The goal,WND suggests, is "to use the pandemic panic to create enough fear that the American public will acquiesce to the passage of Obamacare."
Corsi and WND engage in more fearmongering, claiming that "a massive public relations program launched by the federal Center for Disease Control aimed possibly at creating the atmosphere in which U.S. citizens could be forced to take H1N1 vaccinations against their will" (emphasis added).WND ignores the possibility that such a campaign could possibly be aimed at saving lives.
The article also states: "Neurologists around the world have been warned to watch out for an increase in a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome, or GBS, which was generated by a similar swine flu vaccine administered by the government by the Ford administration in 1976." In fact, the 1976 vaccine was never definitively linked to GBS, which also "may be an extremely rare reaction to any vaccination."
The article then states:
"Red Alert intends to closely watch how the H1N1 scare is handled by the White House," Corsi wrote. "With the Obama administration intent on the government taking over major sectors of the private economy, we are concerned the swine-flu pandemic scare is simply another component of that socialist agenda."
So what happens if low vaccination rates result in a swine flu epidemic? Can we hold Corsi and WND liable for causing the deaths of Americans by their fearmongering?