A March 28 WorldNetDaily article uncritically promotes Donald Trump's claim that Presieent Obama has "spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue" of his birth certificate and eligibility. But WND did not serve up any evidence Trump has to back up the claim -- perhaps because there isn't any, as WND should know.
WND reported in October 2009 that "President Obama has paid nearly $1.7 million to his top eligibility lawyer since the election" -- a claim that wasn't exactly true. The evidence WND presented showed only that Obama's campaign, reorganized after the 2008 election as Organizing for America, paid that money to the law firm representing the campaign, but no proof was offered that all of the money -- or, for that matter, any of it -- went toward addressing "eligibility" questions.
WND also touted how "Trump released a copy of his own hospital-generated birth certificate to the media today, listing New York City's Jamaica Hospital as his place of birth on June 14, 1946." But as we've noted, the certificate was issued by a hospital, not the state-issued certificate he's demanding from Obama. That makes it even less valuable the certification of live birth Obama's campaign released, which, unlike Trump's certificate, was issued by a state agency.
You'd think WND would call Trump out on that. But since he's doing WND's dirty work in promoting the birther narrative, Joseph Farah and Co. are apparently going to give him a pass on the certificate's relatively meaninglessness.
Trump's Birth Certificate Is Meaningless Topic: Newsmax
Newsmax is making a big deal about how Donald Trump "released his birth certificate exclusively to Newsmax." Just one little problem: That's not really a birth certificate.
As The Smoking Gun points out, the document he provided to Newsmax is not an official, state-authorized birth certificate -- it's a ceremonial one issued by the hospital he was (allegedly) born in, Jamaica Hospital in New York City, adding, "Official birth certificates are issued (and maintained) by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s Office of Vital Records."
In other words, it's no better -- and since it's not issued by a state record-keeping agency, arguably worse -- than the birth certificate Barack Obama has released, which was issued by the Hawaii Department of Health.
The Smoking Gun adds: "On a possibly related note, Jamaica Hospital has been the recipient of significant financial largesse from the Trump family. In fact, the Queens institution includes the Trump Pavilion, a nursing and rehabilitation facility that was named for Mary Trump."
It seems that, by Trump's own standards, Trump has something to hide.
UPDATE: Trump has now ponied up an actual, official birth certificate to Newsmax. Meanwhile, Politico notes that -- as the official certificate states -- Trump's mother was born in Scotland, which would seem to run him afoul of the other birther argument used against Obama: he's not a "natural born citizen" because both of his parents were not born American.
UPDATE 2: Newsmax has also posted Trump's "certification of birth" from New York City -- the exact same form Obama has.
NEW ARTICLE: How Biased Must A WorldNetDaily Reporter Be? Topic: WorldNetDaily
Brian Fitzpatrick failed to make the cut as a WND writer. Was his work too slanted and misleading -- or not slanted and misleading enough? Read more >>
Why Is WND Begging For Money To Run Ads For Corsi's Birther Book? Topic: WorldNetDaily
A March 27 WorldNetDaily article kicked off the rollout of Jerome Corsi's WND-published birther book,which "promises to be a game-changer on the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility." But it also came with a questionable plea for cash:
Advance orders for this book from retailers across the U.S. already suggest it will be Corsi's third No. 1 New York Times bestseller – probably bigger than the previous two.
"Imagine how that will change the character of the debate on this critical constitutional issue," says Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND and WND Books, the publisher of "Where's the Birth Certificate?" "Therefore, we have a strategy for promoting this book far and wide – going right over the heads of the hopelessly biased and politically correct press. But we need your help to pull it off."
A series of television ads are now in production to ensure this book cannot be spiked by the Big Media. WND needs to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to air these commercials on television networks and stations throughout the country.
"You can view the first TV spot right now and help us spread it across the Internet long before the book is even available," says Farah. "Put it on your websites, your Facebook pages, send it to your friends by email and make sure they know how to donate to the cause – the cause of truth in the matter of Barack Obama's eligibility for office."
Go to Wheresthebirthcertificate.com to get the word out now.
"We need to make this the biggest publishing event of the year," said Farah.
Farah also urges everyone concerned about the cover-up to make a donation in any amount – from $5 to $5,000. (Bigger donations can be accepted by special arrangement by emailing Farah personally email@example.com.) Anyone who donates $25 or more will get a first-edition, autographed copy of "Where's the Birth Certificate?" by Jerome Corsi as soon as it is available in May.
WND is not a non-profit operation -- it's a for-profit, Delaware-incorporated company that is majority owned by Joseph Farah. It has claimed to be profitable in the past. So why is Farah begging for money?
Surely such a blockbuster book, with all of those advance orders Farah claims to have, should be throwing off enough cash for his envisioned publicity campaign to pay for itself, or at least demonstrate enough promise (if Farah's hype is to be believed) that WND could borrow the money to pay for the publicity campaign from a reputable financial insitution that would be paid back through the massive profits from said blockbuster book sales.
Instead, Farah wants your money. What is he offering instead? Just an autographed copy of Corsi's book. Nothing else. Not a piece of his company, which any prospective donor certainly should get -- Farah wants to keep all of that for himself.
Will he be offering accounting and documentation to prove that any donated money will actually go toward the book's promotion and not for, say, WND's day-to-day operations or remodeling Farah's house? He's not promising that.
Seems to us that Farah is running something of a scam here, trying to personally profit from other people's money.
If Farah is running his business this way, why should anyone have any sort of confidence in the contents of Corsi's book?
NewsBusters Touts Beck's Mocking of Alex Jones, Ignores That Beck Guest Is Jones Fave Topic: NewsBusters
In a March 25 NewsBusters post, P.J. Gladnick touts how "Glenn Beck and his radio crew produced absolute comedy gold by goofing on [conspiracy-obssessed radio host Alex] Jones' groupie-like fawning over [Charlie] Sheen." Gladnick adds, "It's going to be interesting to hear Alex Jones' reaction, if any, to Glenn Beck's comedy gold mockery of him. And no matter how many times you listen to the Glenn Beck Show clip of that impersonation, it will continues to induce uncontrollable laughter in you."
Gladnick didn't mention that another Jones favorite (and fellow truther) is G. Edward Griffin, author of the anti-Federal Reserve tome "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Griffin was the lead guest on Beck's Fox News show the same day Gladnick's post appeared.
We probably won't be seeing any "comedy gold" coming out of the Beck camp over that one. Not intentionally, anyway.
WND Unhappy Children Aren't Being Indoctrinated Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily regularly rails against what it claims is "indoctrination" of various kinds -- just search its archive. So it was a bit of a surprise to see a WND article complaining that children aren't being indoctrinated enough.
A March 26 article by Drew Zahn features religious pollster George Barna's complain that "Christian parents have been hoodwinked by political correctness into adopting an attitude so destructive to their children's faith and future that he calls it 'laissez-faire lunacy'":
Barna told WND the politically correct idea that "parents should let children choose their own faith" might sound good to a postmodern mindset, but it fails both parents and their children.
"An activity that has traditionally been influenced by parents, attempting to get their children to embrace the parents' Christian faith – we find more and more parents are saying, 'Culturally now that's unacceptable, that's deemed inappropriate,'" Barna said, "so they're not as aggressive in bringing their children along in the Christian faith."
The net effect, Barna said, is that children today are increasingly left exposed to the appeals of many other religions, delaying their decision to follow a particular faith until later ages and turning more and more to atheism and agnosticism.
"I'm not saying that parents should protect their children from knowing about the hundred other faith groups from which they could choose, not to let them know that and then let them know why Christianity is our faith of choice," he continued. "But to leave it completely in the hands of our children and say, 'It's their choice, their journey, I'm not involved,' I think that's lunacy."
"Parenting isn't a democracy," Barna said. "One of your jobs as a parent is to prepare your child for life. There's probably no area of life that's more significant than what you believe about God. Everything that you do in life, every decision you make, every relationship you build is going to flow forth from your perspective on key questions: Does God exist? Which god exists? What's the nature of that god? Am I supposed to be like that god? What's expected of me by that god? Those critical decisions form the foundation on which to base all your other decisions in life.
"As a parent, if I look at my children and say, 'The only fair and proper thing is for me to allow the child to make up his or her own mind based on what they feel or believe, based on what they experience,' that's an appropriate postmodern point of view," he continued. "I'm not sure, though, how well that prepares a child for life.
"If you as a parent believe it's critically important that you understand there is a God and who that God is and what His role is in your life, if that's important enough for you to buy into, then why wouldn't you say that's important enough for your children?" he asked. "If you believe that's what's going to prepare you for life successfully, then why wouldn't you want to instill those same values and perspectives in your child's life?"
"I don't see that postmodern, laissez-faire approach to children as a virtue," he concluded, "I see it as crippling a child."
Of course, another word for getting one's children to embrace their faith is indoctrination -- a word that, unsurprisingly,appears nowhere in Zahn's article.
By contrast, just this month alone at WND:
An anti-gay activist denounced a California plan teach about the role and contributions of gay Americans as "the worst school sexual indoctrination ever."
Another anti-gay activist called teaching the existence of same-sex couples to children "indoctrination."
News editor Bob Unruh asserted that "Muslims" were "using television to indoctrinate even toddlers and school-age children into a culture of death."
Unruh claimed that German authorities "sent two fathers to jail for refusing to allow the public school system to indoctrinate their children with a sex philosophy that 'if it feels good, do it.'"
Ellis Washington claimed that "most of us were educated in progressive education indoctrination centers called public schools."
Chuck Norris declared that schools were "progressive indoctrination camps."
By this same standard, what Barna wants is indoctrination of children into Christianity. Why are he and WND afraid to call it what it is?
AIM Embraces 'Third Terrorist' Conspiracy Theory For OKC Bombing Topic: Accuracy in Media
A March 24 Accuracy in Media column by Wes Vernon rehashes the conspiracy theory that a man named Hussain Al-Hussaini -- recently arrested for alleging slashing someone with a beer bottle in Boston -- is actually the "John Doe #2" who was initially sought in connection with the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
Vernon cites the work of reporter Jayna Davis, who has been pushing the theory for years -- for full conspiracy credibility, her book on the subject was published by WorldNetDaily (though today it's listed as a title by Thomas Nelson, WND's first book-publishing partner, because Nelson retained the rights to those titles published under the partnership after it ended). Vernon ranted:
This man should not be free another day until the authorities do their job and really “thoroughly” investigate the case and prosecute it. The feds have all of Davis’s evidence including 22 witnesses who saw him with Timothy McVeigh (later convicted) during relevant hours on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing.
One little problem: The whole "John Doe #2" thing has been pretty much discredited. As Salon reported in 2002, even anti-Muslim activist Steve Emerson disavows the idea that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh had any involvement with Muslim groups. Further, Salon notes, there's no logical reason for the feds to ignore a Middle Eastern connection to such a massively destructive bombing in the U.S.
UPDATE: Vernon follows up with another AIM column pushing the same conspiracy theory and, again, ignoring the fact that it's been discredited.
WND's Kupelian Embraces Homophobe's Endorsement Of His Book Topic: WorldNetDaily
We've detailed how WND managing editor David Kupelian's book "How Evil Works" is laden with factually suspect moralizing. It turns out that Kupelian has to turn to an even more morally suspect individual to promote it.
Every few months or so, those on WND's mailing list can count on getting an email promotion (like this) for Kupelian's book containing a slobbering endorsement of the book by Liberty Counsel's J. Matt Barber that WND published last summer that likened Kupelian to none other than C.S. Lewis as "a wordsmith capable of so effectively, objectively and concisely distinguishing between good and evil."
Of course, WND won't tell you that Barber is a notorious homophobe who once declared that homophobia is "the rational fear that 'gay sex' will kill you!"
That Kupelian must fall back on an endorsement by such a hateful man is more of a sign of desperation than a shrewd marketing move.
UPDATE: Most recently, Barber asserted that gay teens are committing suicide because they "know that what they are doing is unnatural, is wrong, is immoral." Is that a statement Kupelian agrees with?
Jerome Corsi's March 26 column carries the headline "Ayers admits (again) he wrote Obama bio." The headline should be "Corsi admits he doesn't understand sarcasm."
While Corsi avers that Bill Ayers' statement in a recent speech that he wrote Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father" and that "if you help me prove it, I’ll split the royalties with you" "could be explained away as a mocking irony designed only to goad Ayers's critics by yet another false admission he was the president's ghostwriter" -- indeed, the video clearly shows that Ayers was being sarcastic -- Corsi's overall tone is intent on taking Ayers' words at face value, which shows either that he doesn't get sarcasm or that it's not in his (or WND's) business interest to do so. Remember, Corsi's new WND-published birther book is coming out in May.
Corsi even hauls in Jack Cashill -- whose own attempts to prove Ayers' authorship have been discredited -- to weigh in:
In an email to WND, Cashill said that Ayers's face looked relaxed at first when he answered the question.
"This time, I think Ayers was making a serious admission," Cashill told WND. "I think it took a split second for him to realize where this was going. Then, as he pulls away, his face assumes a smile rictus. It’s not a full-face smile, but a false smile – only the mouth, not the eyes."
"Ayers is a very smart guy and he was careful to couch his comments with irony," Cashill noted. "But Ayers was not aiming his irony at critics like me. He was aiming his irony at the White House, letting Obama know that he could blow Obama out of the water, if he gets serious about it."
So Cashill is suddenly a body language expert all of a sudden?
UPDATE: NewsBusters' Noel Sheppard picks this up, and completely ignores the sarcasm, insisting that it's "newsworthy that the President's first book was written by a domestic terrorist."
MRC Officials Attack Musical They've Never Seen Topic: Media Research Center
Media Research Center chief Brent Bozell devoted his March 25 column to trashing the new musical "The Book of Mormon," asserting that it "belongs in a latrine." He went on to claim that the show's creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone of "South Park" fame, are "perpetually immature" and "growth-stunted boys" who "have spent years delivering product sure to please high school sophomores and L.A. Times film critics."
But Bozell offers no evidence that he has seen the musical he's attacking -- highly unlikely since it officially opened only the night before his column appeared. Indeed, Bozell offers no personal observations of the show, only quoting others talking about it.
MRC director of media analysis Tim Graham joined in the parade of deliberate ignorance in a March 26 NewsBusters post declaring his offense that a Washington Post would say nice things about this "Mormon-trashing musical." Graham offered no evidence that he has seen the show, unlike the Post reviewer he's attacking.
Graham followed up with a post attacking yet another review of the show -- which, again, Graham himself has not seen.
Is it too much to ask Bozell and Graham to actually experience the show they're attacking? Apparently it is.
Kinsolving Asks If Obama Is 'Sorry' That Illegal Immigrants Were Arrested Topic: WorldNetDaily
Yes, Les Kinsolving actually asked this question of White House press secretary Tim Carney:
Both the Washington Post and the Washington Times report the arrest of 130 illegal aliens in Virginia this week. Is the president gratified or sorry?
And Kinsolving wonders why he -- who is so more interested in being a spiteful partisan hack instead of a real reporter -- doesn't get to ask more questions in White House press briefings (something he whines about constantly).
Bozell Pushes Bogus Claim That Bush Didn't Get Free Pass In Iraq War Runup Topic: Media Research Center
A March 25 NewsBusters post highlights Brent Bozell's recent appearance on "Hannity," during which he complained that the media "hammered Bush" about getting congressional approval for the Iraq War while "such scrutiny has been missing in President Obama's actions on Libya." In reality, the media mostly gave President Bush a free pass in the runup to Iraq, which even the New York Times and Washington Post have admitted.
Simply stated, we must drill now. Let's delude ourselves that we are actually healing the planet some other time. For years now, the warnings have gone out that the U.S. needs to free itself from dependence on Islamic oil. President Obama has done just the opposite, choosing instead to petition some worthless puny little gods called Volt and Prius to save us. I would love to believe that Rush Limbaugh is wrong when he says that President Obama is purposefully trying to destroy this nation, but in light of his actions, what other option do I really have?
The world economy in an imminent free fall over rising oil prices; Middle Eastern radical Islamic violence is spreading, threatening Israeli and Western security interests; and now we are hit with huge earthquakes and tsunamis – and our president, Barack Hussein Obama – the supposed leader of the planet – holds a news conference yesterday where he sounded more like someone who had overdosed on anti-depressants and tranquilizers than a leader who is alert, engaged and aggressively on the job. In a rambling, lackluster and defensive display of his now-patented and cocky inflated ego, the "mullah in chief" defended his administration's policy to curtain drilling for oil to create energy independence, gave mild if not unconvincing condolences to the Japanese people and then – in response to questions about the Middle East – attempted to distinguish between real assistance for the freedom fighters there and U.S. policy.
Obama will not likely win the next election; his pro-Muslim, anti-Semitic, if not bribed, state is now even apparent to many of his past supporters on the left – particularly liberal Jews and progressive whites, and other previous constituencies. But, assuming that the nation survives until 2012, what will follow is equally concerning.
When Obama arrived in the Windy City, Farrakhan had already forged deep ties with Gadhafi. It's no secret that Wright, and to a lesser extent Farrakhan, became Obama's mentors, but it can't help but give pause that Gadhafi, in his terse admonitions to the president and elsewhere, habitually refers to him as "my son."
Precisely what, if any, relationship might Obama have had with the Libyan leader?
The fact is, when it comes to American interest, Obama couldn't care less. He demonstrated that by seeking and taking America's marching orders solely from the United Nations and the Arab League, without even saying howdy-do to Congress (whose answering chorus of silence is a disgrace), later kicking soccer balls around Rio instead of addressing the American people as to why he was ordering another U.S. military intervention – this one with al-Qaida support.
It's as if Obama considers the interest he serves as being above all that Congress-American-people-stuff. "Humanitarians" are like that, and what we're seeing is so-called humanitarian military intervention, the doctrine is promulgated by Obama's human rights adviser Samantha Power. Known as a genocide expert, Power has gone so far as to argue for the insertion of a "mammoth" American "protection" force into Israeli-Palestinian environs to prevent "human rights abuses" – code for neutralizing Israeli self-defense.
WND Revives Discredited Attacks On Gorelick Topic: WorldNetDaily
As we'vedetailed, WorldNetDaily and the rest of the ConWeb took great joy in falsely accusing former Clinton administration deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick of creating the "wall" that restricted the ability of law enforcement officals to share information with intelligence officials.
With reports that Gorelick is a candidate to become the next FBI director, WorldNetDaily returns to the scene of the crime by reviving those bogus claims.
A March 24 article by Jerome Corsi asserts that Gorelick "helped to bring us 9/11," adding:
Also, from 1994 to 1997, while serving in the Department of Justice as a deputy attorney general, Gorelick wrote a 1995 memo creating what in time became known as the "Gorelick Wall."
Basically, the Gorelick memo set in stone the Clinton-era doctrine that terrorism was to be regarded as a criminal justice problem. That meant information developed by intelligence agencies was not to be shared with criminal investigative units, including the Department of Justice, largely because the regulations under which intelligence agencies operate did not necessarily protect the civil rights of criminal suspects under U.S. law.
Gorelick's role in writing the memo was not generally known until she was appointed by then-Senate Democratic Party minority leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 Commission.
Her participation as commissioner became controversial when then-Attorney General John Aschroft in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission declassified and brought to light the 1995 Department of Justice memorandum authored by Gorelick.
Appearing before the 9/11 Commission, Ashcroft testified, "Although you understand the debilitating impact of the wall, I cannot imagine that the commission knew about this memorandum, so I have declassified it for you and the public to review. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this commission."
Since Ashroft's disclosure, controversy has swirled over the possibility that had intelligence and law enforcement agencies fully shared information about prospective terrorists attacks, 9/11 might have been prevented.
In fact, as we earlier detailed and Media Matters also notes, the no-sharing policy began well before Gorelick's tenure; a congressional report stated that the "wall" began more than 60 years ago. Corsi fails to mention that the Justice Department under Ashcroft renewed the "wall" shortly before 9/11 -- one of his deputies wrote in August 2001, "The 1995 procedures remain in effect today." Even former Sen. Slade Gorton, a member of the 9/11 Commission, wrote that Gorelick "had nothing to do with any 'wall' between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies."
Jack Cashill joined the parade in his March 24 WND column, echoing the false claim that "Gorelick penned the infamous 'wall' memo that prevented intelligence agencies from sharing information in the run-up to Sept. 11." But Cashill is actually much more interested in trying to shoehorn Gorelick into his longtime conspiracy theory that TWA Flight 800 was shot down or bombed.
Trump Gives Newsmax License To Go Full Birther Topic: Newsmax
It should come as no surprise that WorldNetDaily is reveling in Donald Trump's outbreak of birtherism, with articles on his appearance on "The View" spewing his birther views and Sean Hannity's subsequent shift to birtherism in defending Trump and Rush Limbaugh's echoing it.
The surprise is that Newsmax is following WND's birther lead.
A March 24 interview by Jim Meyers and Ashley Martella touts how Trump "is not backing down from his demand that President Barack Obama produce his birth certificate and stepped up his criticism by questioning why he has not released other personal records, including college transcripts and legislative papers."
The article even repeats some bogus birther tropes. Meyers and Martella write that "former Pennsylvania Deputy Attorney General Philip Berg has claimed that Obama’s paternal grandmother says she was in the delivery room when he was born in Kenya," but don't mention that Berg's claim has been discredited.
Newsmax followed up with a March 25 article by Dave Eberhart regurgitating Limbaugh's praise of Trump's birtherism.
Newsmax has previously resisted overt birtherism despite some of its columnists (and even CEO Christopher Ruddy) embracing the idea, its coverage has been intermittent at best and certaintly nowhere near the rabidly obsessive levels of WND.
But Newsmax is weirdly in the tank for Trump, beginning with Ronald Kessler's slobberingover his presidential prospects in January and even bragging about how he and his wife "spent the Martin Luther King holiday weekend with [Trump] at Mar-a-Lago, his home and club on Palm Beach." Indeed, Newsmax's Trump interview is accompanied by an article by Chris Gonsalves on how Trump's show "Celebrity Apprentice" is "drawing record viewers and topping the ratings in key demographics" and an S.E. Cupp column claiming other Republican presidential candidates could learn from Trump.
Newsmax's fealty to Trump, it seems, has given it cover to go fully birther.