Farah Blames WND Readers For Not Giving Him Money to Promote Birther Issue Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah has decided that he is not to blame for waning interest in WorldNetDaily's birther attacks. No, he writes in his Nov. 14 column, it's WND readers who are to blame:
And, in fact, we are erecting new billboards. The latest one went up this week in Pennsylvania.
Why not more?
I'll tell you why.
Because your enthusiasm has evidently waned. I'm afraid I have to pass the buck to you.
Petition signups are stagnant. We've been flirting with 500,000 for weeks – even months. Do you not know anyone who should have signed that petition by now? It's imperative that you help us get the word out. It's free. It's just an expression of the fact that you believe this is an important issue. I believe millions – tens of millions – agree with the sentiment. Help me find them. Make this petition go viral.
Contributions to the billboard campaign are down. Right now, every new billboard WND erects is costing us money. There are no donations to pay for new billboards or even to maintain the old ones. If you want to see an expansion of this very effective campaign, one that completely put this issue of eligibility on the map, you've got to help me spread the word.
Sales of our documentary, "A Question of Eligibility," the primer for understanding this issue, are down significantly. If you want to introduce someone to this topic, there is no better way than to lend them a copy. Again, if this is an important issue to you, help us get the word out.
Do you get the picture?
It's time to step up the pressure, not back off.
I can't carry this burden alone.
Unmentioned, of course, is the fact that Farah and WND have largely undermined their own case through lies and dishonesty:
"A Question of Eligibility" is similarly laden with them, and is little more than an overheated conspiratorial joke. Farah seems not to have considered that that's why it's not selling.
WND refuses to honestly report on the increasingly questionable legal work of birther lawyer Orly Taitz.
Farah himself admits he cares more about kicking Obama out of office than acting like a responsible journalist.
And in the spirit of acting like an activist instead of journalist, Farah tries to shake down his readers:
Get with the program.
I know times are tough.
I know few of us have any extra spending cash.
Many of us are without jobs, thanks to the Obamaconomy.
Yet, everyone can sign an electronic petition. It doesn't cost a thing.
Most people can contribute $5 to a worthwhile campaign, too. That's all I'm asking. Do what you can. Can you help me spread the word by sending this column around to all your friends?
Don't concede the presidency to Obama without making him prove his eligibility. It would be a terrible precedent. And it would be a disaster for the country. One year has been bad enough. Can you imagine four or more?
But isn't WND a profitable business operation? Why should Farah dun his readers for money when he should be putting his (and WND's) money where his mouth is?
WND Ignores Death Threats By WND Readers Topic: WorldNetDaily
A Nov. 9 WorldNetDaily article by Bob Unruh takes very seriously a comment in a thread on a gay blog claiming that "We will have gay and lesbian people strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up churches" because of right-wing Christian opposition to gay marriage. Unruh quotes anti-gay activists Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber pontificating about the nature of the alleged threat and their claims to have "notified authorities of the threats."
Unruh did not mention death threats made by WorldNetDaily readers against Barack Obama in WND's own threads. As we detailed, WND readers made the following comments in a July 2008 thread for its daily poll:
"Well the OsamaBama logo looks a lot like a stylized target. Hopefully someone will interpret it as one soon."
"I say if the plane does not have a countries identification marking on it, consider it a terriorest aircraft and have a f-16 shoot that sucker down. If we let this slid, the terriorests will have a upper handd, so we cannot tell who is flying that plane, and it should be shot down before it reaches the U.S, coast line."
It is not known if WND, LaBarbera or Barber notified authorites about these threats. They do appear to have been deleted from the thread.
Washington Wrong on 'Gorelick Wall' Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ellis Washington writes in his Nov. 14 WorldNetDaily column:
The second policy America has launched against itself is the infamous "Gorelick Wall." What is the Gorelick Wall? It is a policy developed by Clinton appointee and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who after the first terrorist bombings of the World Trade Center of Feb. 26, 1993, was placed as the head of a blue-ribbon commission to find the causes in our internal security that allowed these bombings to occur.
In March 1995, Gorelick cowrote a radical and treasonous memo that, in the words of Attorney General John Ashcroft, goes "beyond what is legally required ... [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
What does this mean? It means that the FBI cannot share intelligence with the CIA, the NSA, the DEA, ATF, the military or any other security agency in America. It is a unilateral, self-binding policy reminiscent of the proverbial saying, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
Washington is wrong. As we've repeatedlypointedout, Gorelick didn't create the so-called "wall"; it was created in 1978. Her 1995 memo merely detailed procedures that she said permitted a freer exchange of information between criminal and counterterror investigators than had been allowed under the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Additionally, she said, then-attorney general John Ashcroft's own deputy attorney formally reaffirmed the 1995 guidelines just a month before 9/11.
Further, Gorelick's memo applied only to the FBI and the Justice Department, not military and defense operations, so it had no bearing on whether or not information about alleged Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan was shared between them, as Washington suggests.
Oddly, despite his rant, Washington acknowledges some of this; he repeats Sen. Slade Gorton's statement that "Nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies," then adds that "I realize that we can't put all the blame on poor Ms. Gorelick," going on to attack "the treasonous 'Church Committee' of Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, in 1975. Church was one of the many enemies within that virtually destroyed the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies under the pretext of protecting Americans from being spied on, forcing the agencies to comply with the restrictive strictures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Thanks, President Carter!"
The Church Committee was an attempt to rein in the excesses of the FBI and CIA, such as trying to assassinate foreign leaders and rifling through people's mail without a warrant.
But Washington then flip-flops again, stating: "I lay Maj. Hasan's murderous treachery directly at the feet of the Church Committee, for leading to FISA in 1978, the 1995 Gorelick Wall memo and, finally, to the 'manmade disaster' policies of Obama in 2009." He curiously hold Ashcroft harmless, even though his office reaffirmed Gorelick's guidelines a month before 9/11.
He concludes: "To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan's 1987 speech at Berlin, 'Mr. Obama tear down this Gorelick Wall!'"
This is falsehood devolving into incoherence. Washington, despite attacking the "Gorelick Wall," concedes that she didn't create it and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Hasan. And Washington's demand that Obama "tear down this Gorelick Wall!" is nonsensical because it is already torn down; the Patriot Act effectively removed it.
CNS Again Baselessly Asserts 'Amnesty' Topic: CNSNews.com
A Nov. 13 CNSNews.com article by Penny Starr carries the headline, "Napolitano Announces Obama Administration Plan to Give Amnesty to Illegal Aliens." But not only does the article fail to define "amnesty" -- as CNS frequently fails to do -- the word "amnesty" appears nowhere in the article.
Starr goes on to selectively quote Napolitano in her first paragraph, stating that the Obama administration favors a "fair pathway to earned legal status." This is immediately followed by Napolitano's full quote: "A tough and fair pathway to earned legal status will mandate that illegal immigrants meet a number of requirements—including registering, paying a fine, passing a criminal background check, fully paying all taxes and learning English." As noted above, no explanation is given as to how this could be considered "amnesty."
Arrest of Jewish Terrorist Contradicts Klein's Reporting Topic: WorldNetDaily
In October 2008, a WorldNetDaily article by Aaron Klein featured an accusation by "prominent leader of the West Bank's Jewish communities" Daniela Weiss that the Israel Defense Force and Shin Bet Security Services "orchestrat[ed] a recent attack on an extreme leftist Israeli professor and then using the attack to demonize West Bank Jews ahead of an expected evacuation of the territory." The incident was a pipe bomb that exploded outside the house of Israeli professor Zeev Sternhell, whom Klein described as "a prominent proponent of expelling Jews from the West Bank."
Well, Klein and Weiss appear to have been proven wrong. Ynet News reports on the arrest of Yaakov (Jack) Teitel, a resident of a West Bank settlement, for numerous acts of terrorism, including the murder ot two Palestinians and, yes, the pipe bomb outside Sternhell's home.
Klein has long been protective of Jewish settlers in the West Bank -- as we noted, Klein in that October 2008 article failed to report that Weiss, at the same time she was making apparently false accusations against the Israeli government, had just been charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrestby trying to interfere with the arrest of a group of Jews suspected of setting fire to an Arab olive grove.
Klein has also condoned acts of violence by Jews; most notoriously, he described an AWOL Israeli solider who had shot and killed four people on a bus in Gaza has having been "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians" who witnessed the shooting. Klein never described the soldier's victims as having been "murdered."
Klein has further hidden the extremist, violent backgrounds of the right-wing Israeli activists he writes about.
Klein has yet to report on Teitel's arrest, even though the story directly contradicts his previous reporting. It seems Klein ought to, at the very least, issue an update or correction of his original article.
WND Silent On Latest Orly Taitz News Topic: WorldNetDaily
There's exciting news in the world of Orly Taitz, but WorldNetDaily, as perusual, doesn't want its readers to know about it.
The affidavit by Lucas Smith alleging that Taitz attempted to suborn perjury from him and another fringe figure, Larry Sinclair, has been released. Statements about Taitz's sex life aside, the affidavit contains some interesting claims:
Smith claims that Taitz said that Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, supplied her with the copy of the "Kenyan birth certificate" she released in August and WND immediately promoted, at least until it decided that the certificate was a fraud.
Smith claims that Taitz asked to lie about fellow birther lawyer Gary Kreep.
Smith claims that it "became apparent" to him that Taitz "had absolutely no intentions of conducting any research or analysis for her civil action case against President Barack Obama," insisting that the burden was on Obama to disprove the authenticity of her "Kenyan birth certificate" as well as another one Smith clamed to have. Smith also claims that Taitz's birth certificate is a fake "and that Orly Taitz has known it was a fake from the outset."
Of course, Smith has his own credibility problems as well -- in his affidavit, he repeated calls himself "the STAR WITNESS and KEYSTONE to this case against Obama." Plus, he has a lengthy criminal record.
But remember, WND believes that if Smith makes a claim in an affidavit, it must be true. Even though it had determined that Smith's Kenyan birth certificate was fake, it returned to Smith's side after he filed an affidavit "insisting – under threat of perjury – that the Obama birth certificate in his possession is the genuine article."
By that same standard, WND should be reporting on Smith's new affidavit. But it's not. The Orly Taitz protection racket continues!
Cashill Still Rejoicing in Death of Abortion Doctor Topic: WorldNetDaily
Jack Cashill can't quite bring himself to critize Scott Roeder for killing abortion doctor George Tiller. Back in June, Cashill appeared to justify it by calling it inevitable and "a kind of crude frontier justice," blaming not Roeder for pulling the trigger but, rather, former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for not running Tiller out of the state before Roeder had a chance to kill him.
Cashill's Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily column again revels in Tiller's death and refuses to hold Roeder accountable:
Scott Roeder, the accused murderer of late-term Wichita abortionist George Tiller, admitted killing Tiller earlier this week in an interview with the Associated Press.
Roeder told the AP that the shooting was provoked by "the fact [that] preborn children's lives were in imminent danger." He plans to plead "not guilty" and hopes to use this "necessity defense" at trial.
Roeder's public defenders, however, were quick to disown this strategy if for no other reason than that the Kansas Supreme Court rejected a similar defense in an abortion clinic trespassing case in 1993.
Indeed, were Tiller legally performing a state sanctioned service, however malevolent, it is hard to imagine that Roeder's hoped-for strategy would have much of a chance.
Got that? Cashill doesn't find Roeder's "necessity defense" morally reprehensible; he merely regrets it won't hold up in court.
Cashill goes on to once again blame the victim: "Say what one will, Roeder was not a terrorist. There was nothing random about his actions. Nor was Tiller an innocent victim. Far from it." And again, Cashill blames politicians: "Had Tiller gotten the trial he deserved, he would be where Roeder is today, but at least he would be alive."
If Cashill is truly offended by the act of murder, shouldn't he be bothered by Tiller's murder as well? Or is he laying the groundwork for a "necessity defense" of his own? After all, he's been using that argument to defend killer Steven Nary.
We are witnessing an Islamized America. This is well beyond political correctness. We are enforcing Shariah. We will not insult Islam. That is Shariah. We self censor. That is Shariah. We disrespect ourselves, our nation, so that we might respect Islam. This is dhimmitude.
very “Soldier of Allah” who goes jihad is an enemy combatant. Every devout Muslim who believes in the word of the Quran has his duty to Islam, her call to jihad. Hence this terrible act of war, the 14,363 Islamic attacks across the world since 9/11, and all of the relentless plots and plans to take down America in the past month alone. Devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?
Graham Forgets Recent Conservative History Re: Internment Topic: NewsBusters
Tim Graham uses a Nov. 11 NewsBusters post to take issue with Montel Williams' fear that anti-Muslim hysteria in the wake of the Fort Hood shootings might result in the creation of internment camps for Muslims in America. Graham calls Williams' claim "whiplash-inducing paranoia," adding that "Montel is so afraid of a dramatic overreaction that he’s guilty of a dramatic counter-overreaction."
Um, has Graham forgotten that one of the most popular right-wing commentators, Michelle Malkin, published a book that, for all practical purposes, advocates exactly what Williams is fearing?
UPDATE: A Nov. 12 WorldNetDaily article repeats Williams' claim and, like Graham, fails to mention Malkin's "In Defense of Internment."
Meanwhile ... Topic: NewsBusters
Our colleagues at Media Matters have been doing a fine job of dismantling NewsBusters on a regular basis. The latest: Jeff Poor bashing Paul Krugman for doing a "media critic impersonation" when, just two hours earlier, Poor was seriously touting the political analysis of Chuck Norris.
CNS Ambushes Senators on Health Care Question Topic: CNSNews.com
CNSNews.com is ratcheting up its manufacturedstory that the health care reform bill is unconstitutional, publishing separate stories about threedifferentsenators ambushed by CNS for their opinion on the supposed issue.
As in previous stories on the issue, CNS fails to acknowledge the views of non-conservative experts who believe the bill's mandate that all American obtain health insurance is constitutional.
The crusade even gets an echo in Walter Williams' Nov. 12 column (published at CNS, of course), which begins by noting that "At Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Oct. 29th press conference, a CNSNews.com reporter asked, 'Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?'"
While the focus of Fort Hood's inquiries is Nidal Hasan, the Muslim Army psychiatrist accused of murdering soldiers in support of the Muslim jihad against the West, any focus that remains there and fails to broaden the inquiry is misplaced and a disservice to our nation's future. The focus ought to be on the Fort Hood jihadist's boss – Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama declared it is time for Middle East peace "without preconditions." This dovetails Javier Solana's assertion that if Israel and the Muslim nations don't sign a peace agreement soon, then the international community should force an agreement.
The president does not appear to be a friend to Israel. He does, however, look to be a close ally to the global government and its coming leader, the Antichrist.
Molotov Misleads on Constitutional Issue Topic: WorldNetDaily
Molotov Mitchell is so desperate to attack Barack Obama that he's digging up the emoluments clause.
In his Nov. 11 WorldNetDaily video, Mitchell claims that Obama broke the law "willfully and with malice aforethought" by appointing Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. How so? As Mitchell's "constitutional professor" details, the Constitution's emolument clause was put in play, which states that "[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The "professor" continues:
In other words, if a senator were to vote for a raise for the office of secreatary of state, he would no longer be eligible to serve in that office. And since then-Senator Clinton did indeed vote for such a raise in January 2008, Obama defied the Constitution by appointing her to be secretary of state.
In fact, Clinton did not vote for the raise -- it was done by executive order of President Bush. Still, the Constitution does not distinguish whether a lawmaker was involved in the raise or not. Which is where the Saxbe fix -- in which Congress rolls back the salary increase of the appointed position to the level it was before the lawmaker took office for his/her current term -- comes in. And indeed, that's what Congress did to the secretary of state's salary before Clinton assumed the office.
There is debate on whether the Saxbe fix properly addresses the constitutional issue involved -- and it can be argued that the founders' intent was to discourage a lawmaker from creating a job he can get himself appointed to at the end of his term, not to bar all lawmakers from appointed office -- but neither Mitchell nor his "constitutional professor" mention the Saxbe fix.
Nevertheless, Mitchell rants that Obama is "willfullly defying our Constitution in an attempt to create something new." Mitchell then snarks that members of the armed forces take an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, and "since Obama's Kenyan, Indonesian and American, I guess he qualifies as both."
The photo-opped dead/wounded soldier routine is one of Obama's favorites. Back in July 2008, Obama canceled a planned trip to visit wounded troops at Rammstein and Landstuhl U.S. military bases in Germany because, as MSNBC reported, Obama "could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."
That attack was discredited long ago -- no evidence has ever surfaced to support the claim that Obama canceled the Landstuhl visit because the media would not be able to attend.
Further, Shapiro misleadingly frames the quote from from the MSNBC report he is citing. Here's how the quote Shapiro uses appears in the July 24, 2008, MSNBC "First Read" article he is apparently citing:
A U.S. military official tells NBC News they were making preparations for Sen. Barack Obama to visit wounded troops at the Landstuhl Medical Center at Ramstein, Germany on Friday, but "for some reason the visit was called off."
One military official who was working on the Obama visit said because political candidates are prohibited from using military installations as campaign backdrops, Obama's representatives were told, "he could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers." In addition, "Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit."
At no point does the MSNBC report claim, as Shapiro suggests, that Obama canceled the visit because he could not bring media with him.