Archive | Joseph Farah RSS feed for this section

Obama’s third term (not)

By on November 24, 2012 in Joseph Farah, Misc. Conspiracies

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution limits US Presidents to two terms in office. Since the Amendment’s ratification in 1951, US Presidents have left office quietly after their second term (or after losing their second term election bid). For normal folks, that’s the end of the story. For others, the unthinkable, like a modern third-term President, is always hiding in the wood pile.

Rush Limbaugh weighs in saying:

[Obama] has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father’s Marxism. It’s not me saying this—it’s somebody from American Thinker, the Nigerian woman writing last week1, referring to Obama as an average African colonel. You have to wonder  if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite  when he tries to serve beyond 2016. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment which term limits the President of the United States. He may not do it that way. He may not openly try to change the Constitution, but there might be this movement in the country from his cult-like followers to support the notion that a democratically elected leader, who is loved and adored, has carte blanche once elected, to just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it. And I wouldn’t put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016.

Well it would be nice if Obama did so well in his second term that everybody loved him and wanted him to stay on, but while on any given issue 20% of the population line up on the crazy side (whether it’s birtherism, climate change denial, belief in alien abductions or how 9/11 happened), there’s not enough of them to effect real change, like overruling the Constitution on a whim. Limbaugh, as usual, plays on the prejudices of his audience. Continue Reading →

Who benefits from the birther movement?

By on July 6, 2012 in Donald Trump, Joe Arpaio, Joseph Farah, Orly Taitz, Philip Berg, WorldNetDaily

I asked myself that question last night. Supposedly the birther movement started as a comment at the Free Republic web site, a rumor with no hint of why one should believe it. Some people believed it because they wanted to. Early birthers were some Hillary Clinton supporters, the so-called PUMAs. They got a big boost when Phil Berg filed his lawsuit and made it somehow “official.” Birtherism also got a boost from pro-Israel individuals and web sites, like Ron Polland and the Israel Insider, joined with some participation form white supremacists.

Initially birtherism seemed to be a genuine grassroots movement, primarily a creature of the blogosphere. Who benefited? I’d say that in 2008 no one did. Barack Obama won the election handily and became President, and Phil Berg got entangled in a messy lawsuit.

After the election birther bloggers continued to promote various rumors, but I think that it was the full-scale entry of WorldNetDaily in 2009 that was the tipping point that that turned birtherism mainstream, from a basement operation to an industrial polluter. The other major boost to birtherism was the entry of celebrity Donald Trump into the fray. However, President Obama effectively dealt with Trump, and made him a  national laughingstock when Obama released his the long-form birth certificate, and birther numbers were decimated. Clearly Donald Trump didn’t benefit from the birther movement.

The story didn’t end with Trump’s national disgrace. Birtherism came back. It was, again, bloggers, or more precisely YouTubers who who went ape-dip over proving the long form was a fraud, but YouTube is not really a broadcast medium. It was WorldNetDaily again who made birthers front page news with birther coverage 24-7. They developed their on stable of crank experts to analyze the layers of the PDF (in the 60′s there was a TV commercial that posed the question: “Is three enough? Is six too many? You never know with prunes.”). Today if you ask a birther for justification, they will point to Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse which is largely a WorldNetDaily/Jerome Corsi production, with WND as writer, director and producer. Also WorldNetDaily’s own attorney Larry Klayman is big news at WND in the Florida Obama ballot challenge case. (I would not be a bit surprised to learn that WND is paying Klayman to represent Voeltz.)

Joseph Farah once said that he created the birther movement. Why do that? The obvious reason is that WND is creating demand for its products. It’s just like commercials that stigmatize dandruff or greasy hair in order to sell products to combat it. I believe the books, the billboards, the streaming videos and the daily run of articles are all not for the purposes of removing President Obama from office, or forestalling his reelection, but rather for the purpose of getting the hoard of conspiracy theorists and Obama-haters to visit WorldNetDaily’s web site and look at their ads.

You can see the WND emphasis in their coverage. Joe Arpaio, with close ties to WND, is featured frequently. Klayman gets prominent mention. Orly Taitz, on the other hand, is mentioned sparsely (and mostly in 2009) and when she is, she’s not the subject of the article, but merely the attorney listed for the case who isn’t quoted. Taitz is competition for those mouse clicks.

Birtherism only exists among people who wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway. The grassroots birther gets no benefit in terms of electoral outcome. It’s toxic to mainstream politicians. Joseph Farah and WorldNetDaily are the ones who really benefit from the birther movement.

Farah slapped down

By on June 5, 2012 in Joseph Farah, Lawsuits, Media

Can you believe that there are people in the world who would file a meritless lawsuit out of pure spite? It’s true! Joseph Farah sued Esquire Magazine for libel over a satirical1 article that made fun of Jerome Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate? after it’s title became silly following a preemptive release of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate by the White House. You can read my coverage of the $250 Million lawsuit by Farah in these articles:

As I suggested, Esquire Magazine could try a new District of Columbia law designed to prevent people from being victimized by public figures who file lawsuits that can generate large legal fees and drag on for years.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Wikipedia

I told you so!

Esquire Magazine filed such a defense under the DC anti-SLAPP statute and won in a decision yesterday by DC District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer. There was never a doubt in my mind that the suit deserved to be SLAPPed down, but there was some question as to whether the statute could be used in DC District Court (a federal court hearing a case in diversity). There always remains the possibility that an appeals court will overturn the decision over this question, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Judge decided that Farah can’t make his case, and will inevitably lose. One major flaw in the Farah case is that Farah himself called the article satire, before he called it not satire. Oops!

In a SLAPP case, the plaintiff’s have to make a reasonable showing that they have a chance to win at trial before the more expensive process of discovery begins. If the lawsuit is found to be a SLAPP the plaintiff has to pay the defendant’s legal fees.

Judge Collyer was clearly not the elusive birther-friendly judge that they needed. She begin the recitation of the facts in the case by saying:

President Obama was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.

Ouch!

The Judge also made one other comment that I take to heart:

Those who speak with loud voices cannot be surprised if they become part of the story.

Farah’s attorney, Larry Klayman responded:

The court’s decision is significantly flawed and intellectually dishonest.

and

The decision was so poorly reasoned it rises to a level of negligence, if not a desire to dump the case because it is not palatable to the Washington establishment.

“Piffle,” as my Mom used to say. Klayman says they will appeal. I’m happy as a clam.

Here’s the Judge’s opinion:

FARAH, et al. v ESQUIRE – Memorandum Opinion Dismissing Case

1The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. 510 U.S. 569, 581 n.15 (1994) defined “satire” as:

a work ‘In which prevalent follies and vices are assailed with ridicule,” or are “attacked through irony, derision or wit.”

“Update” on Farah v. Esquire Magazine

By on April 25, 2012 in Joseph Farah, Lawsuits, Old News

It’s not much of an update. I checked around yesterday to see if anything had happened in the defamation lawsuit filed by Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily against Esquire magazine, who had published a spoof article saying that Jerome Corsi’s book, Where’s the Birth Certificate?, was being recalled and pulped.

I speculated whether the District of Columbia’s anti-SLAPP legislation would apply in this suit in my article “The Empire SLAPPs Back.” WorldNetDaily reports that a decision in the DC District Court case of 3M Company v. Boulter concluded that the DC Anti-SLAPP Act of 2010 does not apply in federal cases. WND wrote (clarification added):

A federal court’s recent ruling that the District of Columbia’s anti-defamation statute does not apply in federal cases [sitting in diversity] could help move forward a federal lawsuit brought by WND against Esquire magazine….

Oh by the way, Farah’s lawyer is none other than Larry Klayman.

Update:

Klayman sent the DC Circuit Court notice of the 3M case on February 20. This is what he said:

This is to advise this Court that on February 2, 2012, this Court ruled in 3M Corporation v. Boulter, No. 11-cv-1527 (RLW) (D.D.C.) (Exhibit 1) that the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act does not apply in this Court, and, as a result, denying the Special Motion to Dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP Act filed by the defendants in that case. It is now the law of this Court that the Anti-SLAPP Act is not applicable. Thus, the Court should respectfully summarily deny Defendant’s special motion to dismiss, which was filed on August 26, 2011, so that discovery may proceed.

Hearst Publishing on February 24 sent the court its own supplemental authority memorandum and commented:

This [Plaintiff’s] conclusion [that SLAPP is inapplicable] is deeply flawed for several reasons, not least that Judge Leon’s opinion [in DC] (and three federal circuits) reached precisely the opposite conclusion.

Judge Leon in Sherrod v. Breitbart had ruled that the DC Anti-SLAPP act was substantive which would lead to the conclusion that the Erie doctrine applies and therefore Anti-SLAPP motions are allowed even though Judge Leon didn’t allow SLAPP in Sherrod for other reasons.

On April 16, plaintiffs moved to have the order staying discovery vacated (removed).

Do not speak ill of the dead

By on March 1, 2012 in Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah

Today at the Arpaio press conference, Jerome Corsi had warm words for Andrew Breitbart, whose death was announced today. Jerome Corsi said:

And first, if you’ll permit me, I want to express my personal sadness at the passing of Andrew Breitbart, a fellow reporter. I would like express sympathy for Joseph Farah and the entire wnd.com staff. Andrew Breitbart was a courageous friend who we all admired and we greatly miss him.

This is what Breitbart said about WorldNetDaily hawking the birth certificate issue:

“It’s self-indulgent, it’s narcissistic, it’s a losing issue,” Breitbart told Schilling. “It’s a losing situation. If you don’t have the frigging evidence — raising the question? You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you’re a racist! Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare.”

Read the whole exchange that later on involves Joseph Farah at The Washington Independent.

Santorum endorses the antichrist

By on January 23, 2012 in Joseph Farah

I was just saying some nice things about Rick Santorum’s not pandering to birthers. What a shock to learn that Santorum issued a press release announcing a group of endorsements he received, and among those endorsers is none other than the birther antichrist, Joseph Farah. . I assume that we may understand Santorum’s advertising these endorsements as a kind of endorsing the endorsers.

Farah certainly qualifies for the antichrist position because the antichrist is at the most basic level a liar, and Farah and his online web site WorldNetDaily has been the most prolific purveyor of lies and misinformation about Barack Obama and his eligibility to be President. Farah once bragged that he had created the birther movement, and by doing so condemning millions of Americans to the anxiety of a living hell every day.

See article at The Nation.

Arizona Obama investigation nears completion

By on December 29, 2011 in Jerome Corsi, Joe Arpaio, Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily

Or not…

According to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, there are only just a few more weeks work needed for his volunteer posse to complete its investigation of allegations brought by Jerome Corsi and a number of local Tea Party members that Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a fake.

But there’s a snag…

Arpaio pledged at the start that no taxpayer funds would be spent for this posse and the private donations have dried up, as reported by the progressive Phoenix New Times web site as coming from Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily, a man who always has his hand out asking for money. So if you want to fund Sheriff Joe’s posse, make your contribution at WorldNetDaily, and if you give $10, you’ll get a free copy of the eBook, “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?” and for $25 a copy of Corsi’s hardback Where’s the Birth Certificate?” and the eBook. In all fairness, WND also provides the address where you can mail a check directly to the Sheriff’s Cold Case Posse.

Older posts