Main Menu

Archive | WorldNetDaily

Shark sucker

When I was a kid I had the Golden Book: The Sea. I dearly loved that little book, and one of the neat things I learned about was a fish called the remora, or “shark sucker.”1 The remora attaches itself to a shark and the much larger shark carries the little fish around with it.

The remora metaphor came to mind when I heard of the most recent example of a birther trying to attach himself to a bigger story. The remora is “self-proclaimed intelligence expert” (Jerome Corsi’s words) Michael Shrimpton and the shark/big fish is Edward Snowden. Snowden was an international news sensation after leaking NSA secrets to the press. Of course what Snowden hasn’t released is a black box to the public, and a black box could contain anything, so birther Shrimpton uses it to add credibility to his own incredible story. You can read that story at WorldNetDaily in an article by Jerome Corsi. Corsi wrote:

In conversations with WND, nevertheless, Shrimpton doubled down on the claims he made in 2008 by asserting that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, as part of his negotiations to leave Hong Kong, agreed to deliver to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow the classified U.S. military intelligence file on Obama’s DNA.

How an NSA guy was able to purloin military intelligence files is a question worth asking, right after one asks how Shrimpton knows Putin’s secrets.

In all fairness to Corsi, he is not overly sympathetic to Shrimpton, writing among other things:

Government intelligence experts on both sides of the Atlantic marginalized Shrimpton as a loud-mouthed nuisance and gadfly who lacks professional credentials as an intelligence expert.

Shrimpton has his own legal problems, having been charged with making a false report to police of a terrorist plot in 2012.

When I interviewed Snowden while I was in Moscow in 2013, I asked him about any intelligence regarding Obama. Snowden told that he only had access to secrets involving NSA surveillance.2


1Remoras attach to other things besides sharks.

2Just fooling,

15

Klayman: off to the Supreme Court

why?

According to a new article at WorldNetDaily, attorney Larry Klayman says that he will likely appeal his recent 7-2 loss before the all-Republican Supreme Court of Alabama to the United States Supreme Court. Klayman wrote:

imageOver the last five years, many court challenges have been filed concerning Obama’s eligibility. Indeed, I have filed three in Florida and one in Alabama. In every instance, and I am not just referencing the cases that I filed, these court challenges have been dismissed. (They are currently on appeal.) But what is more troubling than the dismissals is that the judges presiding over these cases have generally refused to even explain the reasons for their dismissals. Apparently, they are so afraid of taking on this issue that they don’t want to go on record for their actions. That is because these dismissals are not legally justified.

That is not true; for example, the Farrar v. Obama case in Georgia was not dismissed, but rather had a hearing with witnesses. While I have not reviewed every case, a great many have detailed explanations of why they were dismissed. I remember one of the first cases, Berg v. Obama et al., accompanied by a lengthy and highly-educational opinion by judge Surrick and I have listed  almost a dozen cases where judges addressed the merits of to the argument that US Presidents most have citizen parents.

It is ironic that Klayman holds up for praise Judge Royce C. Lamberth, saying:

Few other judges in this nation have the courage of Chief Justice Moore. The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who held the Clintons to account in the late ’90s and early 2000s and ruled that Bill Clinton had committed a crime1….

Lamberth dismissed several birther cases (and explained why!):

Klayman wrote:

The imposter in the White House must be held accountable, and he should indeed be told to get up off his knees and come out with his hands up.

Klayman seems to be confusing civil and criminal cases.


1Lamberth ruled that Clinton had “committed a criminal violation” of the Privacy Act when he released letters from Kathleen Willey. (CNN Article)

The Many Lies of Joseph Farah

by Loren Collins

I retired my blog, Barackryphal, at the end of 2013 because I was burnt out on Birtherism. After five years, it’s simply become a rehashing of the same tropes, and there’s little new to address.

However, after WorldNetDaily all but gave up on its Birther interests in the fall of 2012, WND President Joseph Farah has recently raised its spectre again, and in doing so yet again demonstrated some abject dishonesty that I felt compelled to address. Others have called him out for his supposed hypocrisy over his reactions to Barack Obama and Ted Cruz.

But I’m not here to call him a hypocrite. I’m here to document that he’s a liar. To wit, in his column of April 23, 2011, Joseph Farah wrote:

“WND never reported that Obama had spent $2 million hiding his birth certificate.”

Whereas five months earlier, on December 9, 2010, Farah said:

“Obama has spent at least $2 million fighting efforts to release his birth certificate.”

And that’s just Farah himself; he claimed that WND had never reported this, when in fact WND reporters had said this dozens of times.

On February 19, 2011, Joseph Farah wrote:

“I don’t know any thinking, rational person who questions the existence of Obama’s birth certificate.”

But what did Farah himself say two years earlier, on Chuck Crismier’s radio show on June 5, 2009?

“There’s a reason that Barack Obama will not show the American people his birth certificate. I believe he doesn’t have one.”

And who else questions the existence of Obama’s birth certificate? Why, none other than WND’s senior reporter, Jerome Corsi. Because Corsi had this to say on The Alex Jones Show on January 20, 2011, just one month before Farah claimed that no “thinking, rational person” would say such a thing:

“The key document that should be produced, if it exists and I don’t believe it does, is the long-form, hospital-generated Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Obama.”

Continue Reading →

Birthers for Cruz!

The Opposing Views web site carries a new article today about WorldNetDaily publisher Joseph Farah, his birther opposition to Barack Obama and his support for foreign-born potential presidential contender Ted Cruz. The article also cites support for Cruz from birther-friendly congressman Steve Stockman.

Both seem to like Cruz’ birth certificate more than Obama’s, even though the latter is the only one with a paper trail and official confirmation. Could the problem with Obama’s certificate be that word “African” on it—I mean as a fact, not an anomaly.

Former general confuses US with UK

My heart goes out to the victims of dementia and their families. I’m not a real doctor, and I don’t make psychiatric diagnoses on the Internet, but there certainly seems to be something wrong with retired major general, Fox News military analyst Paul Vallely and frequent source at WorldNetDaily.

Vallely started having memory problems as early as 2005, regarding some probably imaginary conversations about Valerie Plame. In that instance, he could just have been lying, but no one lies when everybody knows what they are saying is false, and this is exactly what we see in a blog post last month from Vallely, on his Stand Up America blog. Plain and simple, Vallely’s plan to get Obama out of the White House is to hold a “vote of no confidence” in the US House of Representatives.

While the necessity of confidence in the executive by the UK House of Commons is a fundamental requirement of the British Constitution, we don’t do that in the United States.  He also seems to be having some delusional thoughts about the President’s birth certificate. This is an editorial comment at the Stand Up America blog, which has Vallely’s name on the masthead:

By now, even the most ardent nay-sayer of so-called ‘Birthers’ must admit, this Obama document fraud issue, and ignoring the eligibility question stinks to the high heavens. In the privacy of their own abodes they surely must admit it when they look in the mirror in the morning.

His articles attract the usual rabid birthers and usurper haters as commenters.

Vallely is confused. Poor fellow.

Read more:

Bug-eyed British Peer: 7 Steps to jail Obama

This article is a bit late in coming, but I should mention the story for completeness as it is finally making the rounds of re-publication on the Internet.

imageLord Monckton (pictured right – and here, and here and here), a British eccentric, has inserted himself into the American birther movement several times. He’s put forward crank math, crank document forensics and now just plain crank in his WorldNetDaily article, “7 Steps That’ll Land Obama in Jail.”

No impeachment

Monckton says there are probably not enough votes in the House to impeach President Obama over his “Donald Duck birth certificate” (look who’s calling something “Donald Duck!”) and I would agree. Monckton says that the “rabbits” in the House are afraid that their reputations would be trashed—I agree with that too—trashed and rightly so.

The steps

Step 1 is to “stop being panty-waists.”

imageWell, I don’t know that panty-waists want to stop being whatever they are. Hoping someone will do what they are are not doing just because Monckton writes it at WND doesn’t seem to be much of a plan, more like wishful thinking. What Monckton probably longs for is “real men”™, like the one pictured right, in Congress. (Does anybody else think that the watch Vladimir Putin wears looks remarkably like the one that Obama wears?)

That photo is more significant than you might realize, given that I found it using Google image search for: Lord Monckton panty waist.

Step 2 continues in the “lets you and him fight” category with a plan for Congress to investigate why real officials ignore birthers. For example this egregious dereliction of duty:

The attorney general of Hawaii. Following a complaint from a former state senator, Hawaii Five-O forwarded a report to the AG, who, faced with a credible and detailed allegation of the greatest seriousness from an impeccable source, did not even reply.

The lack of a reply is not surprising, given that Hawaii Five-O is a TV show and not a real Hawaiian law enforcement agency. Monckton then details other officials who don’t take birthers seriously, albeit real agencies this time.

Step 3 is for Congress to go talk to Mike Zullo. You have to go to Mike Zullo because Zullo keeps all his real evidence secret, lest it, uh, well, err, get looked at.

Step 4 is to repeal every law Obama signed. There goes my tax cut! Damn!

Step 5 competes with the Hawaii Five-O gaffe for the “clueless” award. After noting that arresting Obama while in office is unlikely, Monckton says:

However, in 2016 Mr Obama will no longer be protected by the office to which he is not on any view entitled.

Obama leaves office in January of 2017, not in 2016.

Step 6 is basically a call for mob rule. Monckton says:

Give private citizens the right to bring prosecutions without the consent of the states’ attorneys general.

Yeah, and let’s also let the anti-birthers prosecute all of the birthers for wasting the country’s time. And while we’re about it, how about citizens extradition so we can get Monckton in the dock.

And finally there is Step 7, which really isn’t about getting Obama in jail, but  about he fact that six is a sucky number to end with. Step 7 says:

If you think all of the foregoing is mad, just watch and learn.

I do think that what Monckton wrote is mad. I’m looking–what am I supposed to see? I certainly don’t expect to see Congress taking any of Monckton’s advice.