It never ends.
In a new article filed last night at WorldNetDaily, reporter Bob Unruh explains that Donald Trump "reached out to WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi, author of 'Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President,' with a long list of questions about where the issue is, and where it seems to be going."
Corsi discussed the supposed phone conversation during an extended interview on Alex Jones' radio show yesterday (audio below). Though Sean Hannity (by canceling a scheduled radio interview), and Fox Business Network (by grilling Corsi and calling his theories "debunked"), have seemingly distanced themselves from Corsi, Jones represents the ideal audience for Corsi's increasingly-deranged conspiracies about the birth certificate.
As we've documented, Jones is perhaps the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the country, and describes himself as the founding father of the 9-11 "inside job" movement.
According to the write-up of the interview at Jones' website, Corsi alleged that Trump was "working with Obama" on the birth certificate issue and that Trump's incessant promotion of the issue was "subterfuge":
Appearing on the Alex Jones Show, Corsi said that he now completely discounted the apparent efforts of Donald Trump to force the release of Obama's birth certificate, stating, "I'm completely convinced at this point Donald Trump was subterfuge, that he.... was working with Obama."
Corsi explained how he was contacted directly by Trump, because Trump wanted to know what was going on behind the scenes, and that he requested several copies of Corsi's book before it was released.
Trump's role according to Corsi was to "beat the drums big" and craft a false resolution to the controversy in order to make the press "go to sleep" and get his $60 million dollar television contract with NBC, owned by General Electric, which is closely allied with the Obama administration.
In their article, WND explains that Corsi afforded Trump the opportunity to shake off allegations that he was working with Obama by recommitting himself to hyping the issue. Corsi also indicates that he was regularly in touch with Trump while the latter was making the media rounds and peddling the conspiracy theory:
"I told him he needs to publicly say that the document in the vault, the original long-form birth certificate, needs to be exposed and examined independently," Corsi said. "The doctor's records, the Kapiolani records of Ann Dunham to corroborate she was in that hospital."
"I told him if you don't press these issues you can't be surprised if there are those who think you're working with Barack Obama [on the dispute]," Corsi added.
During much of April Trump made regular appearances on talk shows and news broadcasts, and almost every time either he or the interviewer raised questions about Obama's eligibility. At the same time, he regularly was in conversation with Corsi and others who helped Corsi investigate the Obama eligibility dispute about the evidence that exists.
Enumerating the various evidence Corsi offered on Jones' show to prove that the long-form was "clearly forged," Jones' website lists "an obvious misspelling on the stamp and a 'smiley face' that appears in the signature of the doctor once the document is blown up to 800 per cent."
Yesterday marked the release of WorldNetDaily writer Jerome Corsi's latest book, Where's the Birth Certificate? A few short weeks ago, the book rode a wave of publicity from unscrupulous conservative websites like the Drudge Report and Fox Nation to #1 on the Amazon bestseller list. Led by Fox News, right-wing media outlets were embracing the birther canard at an ever-increasing pace.
Then it all fell apart.
In the intervening weeks, the birther "issue" has very publicly - and quite embarrassingly for prominent birthers like Corsi and former pretend presidential candidate Donald Trump - collapsed. Obama released his long-form birth certificate on April 27, demolishing the supposed impetus for Corsi's book and rendering it an amusing cultural artifact. In its published form, the book provides a glimpse into the fevered imaginations of some of the most prominent conspiracy theorists of the Obama era.
Corsi announces in his preface that he was writing the book "in the conviction that Obama has usurped the office of the presidency by waging a skillful public relations campaign to suppress his actual birth circumstances." Unfortunately for Corsi, that "conviction" turned out to be utterly, laughably false.
So, first things first: Where's The Birth Certificate?, Corsi asks in his book title. In the Foreword, WND CEO Joseph Farah repeats the question, saying that it has "dogged Obama throughout his term of office" and "may well cost him any chance for re-election in 2012."
Well, here it is:
WND's attempts to discredit Obama's long form birth certificate -- in the desperate hope that it will make Jerome Corsi's upcoming book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, somehow relevant -- have crossed the line from pathetic to hilarious.
Earlier this week, WND CEO Joseph Farah announced that he is persuaded that "the birth certificate released by Barack Obama's White House is fake, phony, a fraudulent forgery." Yesterday, he wrote: "It's about to get much worse for Obama. We are just days away from several more shoes dropping." He added that "we may be witnessing the final days of the Barack Obama regime."
If the most recent report by Corsi is any indication, Obama probably doesn't need to pack up his desk any time soon.
Last night, Corsi published an article about how the supposed "growing list of apparent anomalies" in Obama's long-form certificate "continues to fuel suspicion that the document is a crude, computer-generated forgery."
The latest "anomaly" is a supposed "typographical error" used in the Hawaii Department of Health stamp on Obama's long-form. Take us away, Jerome [note: some of WND's images have been resized to fit Media Matters' site -- originals here]:
Surprise! Ten days after President Obama released his long-form birth certificate, WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah declared last night that his crackpot website will "be presenting what I believe is compelling new evidence that Obama is not only ineligible to be president, but that the document released by the White House is fraudulent." Oh, good. This should prove to be a scholarly exercise.
WND literally cannot accept that Obama was definitively born in the U.S. and is eligible to be president for a simple reason: money. They've built much of their Obama-era business model around questioning Obama's birth certificate and eligibility. (You can still prove to your neighbors you are incapable of critical thinking with your very own "Where's the Birth Certificate?" lawn sign, t-shirt, or bumper sticker.)
Jerome Corsi's WND-published new book, Where's the Birth Certificate?, is set for release next week. Obama releasing his long-form a few short weeks before the book's release put WND in a somewhat awkward position, but they are undeterred. In an attempt to make the release of this book less outwardly hilarious -- and in lieu of adding the subtitle "Oh, There It Is" -- the crew at WND is going all in and declaring that Obama's long-form is a forgery.
Farah's latest column, headlined "The birth certificate debate -- it's not over," essentially gives the Cliff's Notes version of Corsi's two latest stories. Farah concludes that the supposed birther cover-up "could make Watergate pale by comparison."
According to Farah, the pencil marks on Obama's long-form birth certificate are "the very same tell-tale scribblings found in a clearly fraudulent document posted on the Internet about a year ago -- a document that alleged he was born in Kenya." This proves... something? Even Farah's not entirely sure, but he is asking for "some viable explanation other than the two documents were created by the same forger." That must be it, Joseph.
It would be tedious and probably pointless to assess their latest "evidence" in detail, but just to get an idea of how far past the bottom of the barrel the birthers have now scraped, here's a small sample:
Right-wing media responded to the release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate by attacking the president and claiming that certain questions surrounding the document remain unanswered. Below is a sampling of the early attacks by conservative media following the release of Obama's long-form birth certificate.
WorldNetDaily founder and editor Joseph Farah reportedly wrote in a recent email exchange with Salon's Justin Elliott, "Admittedly, we publish some misinformation by columnists." Indeed, Farah is right: WorldNetDaily columnists -- and reporters -- have published numerous falsehoods and smears as well as some of the most absurd anti-Obama conspiracy theories and falsehoods.
This month, right-wing media figures are arguing that President Obama should be impeached for actions he has taken with respect to Libya. Undermining the possibility that they really care about the constitutional issues involved, this argument is just the latest in the right-wing media's neverending quest to see Obama impeached.
WorldNetDaily offers readers "10 easy steps" to become an "eligibility activist":
It probably won't surprise you to learn that nine of the ten steps require you to send WND a check.
Step one offers readers "the most in-depth primer on the subject ever compiled," for the low, low price of $7.95. Step two asks for a "donation of $2 or more." Step three is a sales pitch for a $17.99 DVD. Step four instructs readers to buy a yard sign for $19.95. Next step: Purchase a $19.99 t-shirt. Step six requires the purchase of a $4.00 pack of postcards. Step 7: Purchase bumper stickers at a minimum of $2 each ($5.95 if you prefer a magnetic bumper sticker for easy removal.) Step 8 is easy: Sign a petition. Finally, a reprieve from the financial shakedown! But it doesn't last long: WND readers who want to become "eligibility activists" are next asked for another donation. Finally, completion of the 10 steps requires the purchase of a $22.95 book from WND.
WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah explains: "It's time to step up the pressure … If you want to encourage me to keep up the fight, please follow this 'how to become an eligibility activist 10-point program.'"
Total Cost: At least $96.83 (not counting those two donations.)
Gee, you don't think WND's relentless birtherism is just a shameless attempt to con gullible readers out of their hard-earned cash, do you?
The corruption of the Conservative Political Action Conference, an important American political institution, is widespread.
Thanks to WND's reporting, we now see that it transcends the participation of the homosexual activist organization GOProud
Let me try to frame what is happening inside the conservative movement in a way that might sharpen our focus.
Let's pretend that some free-market-loving adulterers got together and formed an organization called "Swing Right." This group says it supports a strong U.S. defense, but that the military should have no rules against promiscuous sex inside the ranks. The group says it supports free enterprise, but that tax policy should be revamped to create equity for those in the "swinging" lifestyle. The group says it supports limited government, but it approves of the intervention of federal judges in state referenda in which citizens approve of marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. The group also calls for special protections of the "swinging" community that will ensure adulterers will not be fired by their bosses because of their behavior and applauds hate-crimes laws to punish those who don't approve of their lifestyle.
Would it be appropriate for conservatives, who are supposed to be about conserving the vital institutions of self-government, to validate such a group's claims being part of the movement?
Immediately, some will suggest my analogy here is outrageous and ridiculous. Yet it is a near-perfect parallel to what CPAC and others in the conservative movement have done in their eagerness to build a bigger tent, to show how open-minded they are, to bring in more money and, perhaps, to make them more comfortable in their own spiritual void.
Equating gays and adulterers is a longstanding conservative slur. But considering the source, it could be mistaken for a sign of progress: Just last week, the folks at WND were equating gays and Nazis.
Among the most controversial reactions to the landmark repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a recent column at WorldNetDaily by Joseph Farah, in which he essentially urged soldiers and those interested in becoming soldiers not to serve in the U.S. Military.
"As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves," Farah, who oversees the well-read site, wrote in the column posted December 17 before the repeal occurred.
"If the U.S. military is going to be transformed into just another tool of twisted social engineering, rather than a force designed to defend America's national security interests, dedicated, brave and upstanding young men and women should no longer participate of their own free will," Farah added. "It's just that simple. Let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can."
The column drew several critical responses from those in the news business and those who follow military and gay rights issues, ranging from one who called it "irresponsible" to another describing it as "disgusting bigotry."
Mike Triplett, vice president of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association and top blogger on the group's website, blasted Farah's column.
"It is clearly, incredibly irresponsible. This is a good example of the kind of irresponsible commentary that goes on so often in the conservative press," he said. "It is unfortunate that there is so much irrational vindictive inside the conservative press and that it gets linked to by conservative bloggers and legitimate press. That is of greater concern, they are linked by more legitimate people."
Ashwin Madia, an Iraq War veteran and interim chairman of VoteVets.org, stated in an e-mail response to the column:
"It's disappointing to hear someone demand that brave American men and women stop serving their country because of his blind hatred for a particular group of people. Fortunately, those who have served in today's military - including leadership from every branch - are rightfully confident that every survey of service members is correct and this repeal will have little effect on recruitment, retention, and readiness."
He also added, "...the disgusting bigotry of Mr. Farah makes very clear who has rightfully earned the title of 'social deviant.'"
Col. Dave Lapan, a U.S. Department of Defense public affairs officer, dismissed Farah's column.
"We see editorials and opinions all the time and people are free to have opinions," Lapan said. "I would suspect that most people in the military are serving for other reasons and wouldn't listen to that type of admonition for people.
"The military is, if nothing else, a meritocracy, people advance because they are good at what they do, regardless of where they grew up or what gender they are or what racial group they grew up with."
Lapan added: "Historically, when other militaries have made this change, those who reported that the change would cause them to either leave the service or not join the service severely overestimated what actually happened in practice. Very small numbers actually followed through on that."
Jarrod Chlapowski, field and development director of Service Members United -- the largest gay and lesbian troop organization - said predictions of military problems are unfounded.
"They made much more dire predictions about white soldiers leaving the military during the integration of African-Americans in the military and it did not occur," said Chlapowski, an Army veteran who served from 2000 to 2005.
He said reactions like Farah's are not a surprise, but hardly the majority viewpoint: "We won our biggest gay rights victory yet and this is what you will see. Yes, the media should not be advocating something that is clearly wrong and incorrect, but it is an opinion column and he is entitled to it. The implementation of the repeal will be the best education in that regard, it will demonstrate that it is not an issue. We are at a point where we are not arguing for repeal, it is actually happening."
In a December 17 column at WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah encouraged U.S. service members to leave the military if Congress were to lift the ban on openly gay service, writing, "As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves." Farah also wondered, "So what's next if the U.S. military opens up its ranks to flaming homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, lesbians and other sexual deviants du jour?" From the post:
So what's next if the U.S. military opens up its ranks to flaming homosexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, lesbians and other sexual deviants du jour?
According to the Pentagon's survey on the impact of the move, 265,000 military service people would leave earlier than planned as a result of just this move. That represents 12.6 percent of all personnel, and, I think, that's low-balling it.
Military analyst Bob Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, said the real number could exceed half a million.
"Twelve-point-six percent is just the people who said they would leave," Maginnis told WND. "If you add in the number who said they 'might' leave, you get 23.7 percent. That would be 528,000, when you count both active duty and reserves."
What is at the heart of evil in our world, and how do we lessen its power in our own lives? Check out David Kupelian's newest book, "How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America"
As much as I respect and admire the U.S. military as an institution, I would find myself actively encouraging men and women to leave - in droves.
If the U.S. military is going to be transformed into just another tool of twisted social engineering, rather than a force designed to defend America's national security interests, dedicated, brave and upstanding young men and women should no longer participate of their own free will. It's just that simple. Let the politicians cobble together a military of social deviants if they think they can.
After all, this is simply a plan being orchestrated by a regime that loathes the military and seeks to destroy it. Maybe it's time for America to recognize what that will mean to the future of the country.
As Media Matters previously noted, most respondents to the Pentagon's DADT survey said repeal would not affect their career plans, and predictions that integration would hurt retention proved false in foreign militaries.
Since NPR terminated Juan Williams' contract, numerous conservative media figures, led by Fox News hosts, have suggested -- citing no evidence whatsoever -- that the firing is related to a recent $1.8 million donation to NPR from Open Society Foundations, a philanthropy started by George Soros.
It seems like many on the right can't stop gushing about Carl Paladino's recent remarks about homosexuality -- except, actually, Carl Paladino. Even after New York's Republican gubernatorial candidate Paladino issued an apology yesterday for his remarks to Orthodox Jewish leaders on Sunday, anti-gay conservatives keep praising his speech, which included a call to protect children from being "brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option" as heterosexual marriage.
Adding their voices to the many conservative pundits who have already applauded Paladino's comments, WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah and CNSNews.com Editor-in-Chief Terence Jeffrey are now jumping on the bandwagon. In a post early this morning, Farah said that Paladino's comments were "perfectly reasonable" and said it's "undeniably true" that there's "an ugly, revolting side to the 'gay rights' movement." From the post:
Paladino doesn't want kids "brainwashed," he said. Most people don't realize that is exactly what happens in many or most public schools when it comes to homosexuality. Kids are taught values that would be anathema to their parents if they only knew what was happening. That's what Paladino was saying. He said there is an ugly, revolting side to the "gay rights" movement. That is undeniably true. When candidates boast about taking their kids to "gay pride parades," you have to wonder about their sanity. These are spectacles that could never be aired in their entirety on television because of obscenity laws.
Farah also falsely claimed that "the overwhelming number of Americans reject same-sex marriage." In fact, two recent polls -- one in September from the Associated Press, and one in August from CNN --show that a majority of Americans support allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Jeffrey spewed similar vitriol in a post today, writing that "no prominent politician who questions the wholesomeness of same-sex sex can escape a vicious beating by the liberal elite" and that these beatings are "designed to uproot the laws and norms of our society from the immutable natural law that is the true foundation of our freedom."
He also furthered the idea that gays want to "brainwash" children by falsely suggesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit "ruled that parents cannot opt their kindergarteners out of Massachusetts public-schools classes that teach 5-year-olds that same-sex marriage is a good thing." Actually, the ruling simply stated that parents can't micromanage schools' curricula. The court never said parents don't have a right to move their children to another school, or a private school, or to homeschool them.
Paladino, in the meantime, issued a letter yesterday acknowledging that he made "mistakes" in his comments to the Jewish leaders. "I sincerely apologize for any comment that may have offended the gay and lesbian community or their family members. Any reference to branding an entire community based on a small representation of them is wrong," he wrote.
Too bad we'll never see Jeffrey and Farah apologizing for their own comments.
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah continues his attacks on Ann Coulter -- Ann Coulter! -- for "weakening of the resolve within the conservative movement" by speaking at GOProud's Homocon event:
I am far from alone in viewing Coulter's acceptance of that high-profile speaking engagement as further evidence of a weakening of the resolve within the conservative movement in defending marriage, the integrity of the U.S. military and the First Amendment by embracing as allies those who attack all three of those institutions, while championing the false notion that Americans should be granted special privileges and protections based on the perverse sex acts they prefer.
Coulter's action cannot be judged in a moral and political vacuum. Same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military and hate-crimes legislation are all political realities that are being shoved down the throats of Americans against their expressed will. This is hardly the time to be singing Kumbaya with the radical advocates of those positions. They're winning. America is losing.
By the way, has anyone considered what Ann Coulter might have said to "Homocon" had her feathers not been ruffled by the accountability she received from me and WND?
Did you ever think you'd see the day when Ann Coulter was criticized for being insufficiently hardline?
Farah also claims that his previous criticism of Coulter came "without any invective, any rash charges or ad hominem attacks."
Oh, really? Last week, Farah suggested that gays are worse than the Ku Klux Klan.
WorldNetDaily's Joseph Farah goes off on Ann Coulter's appearance at GOProud's Homocon event:
[T]he point I was making was driven home by all of the press coverage of the event – that "her presence marked the increasingly mainstream embrace of gay rights."
That's the trouble with allowing yourself to be exploited by a group with a dangerously extremist agenda that includes the promotion of same-sex marriage, open homosexual service in the U.S. military and a wink and a nod toward hate-crimes legislation.
If a celebrity chooses to speak to the Ku Klux Klan, there is no question the Klan benefits from such an appearance – no matter how much the speaker might attempt to explain the differences he or she might have with the group's agenda. Justifying such an appearance by suggesting it's just another paid speaking gig would hardly mollify the criticism or negate the benefit the Klan received from the event.
Of course, no one in respectable public life would consider speaking to the Klan for those reasons.
However, I would suggest the ungodly, sin-glorifying homosexual agenda represents a far greater and far more imminent danger to the future of the United States than does the Klan's racist, ungodly and sin-glorifying agenda.
That's not to say we should never speak to or evangelize sinners – be they Klan members or homosexual activists. In fact, that's exactly what we should do. What we should never do is to embrace or celebrate or validate their activism in any way.
It's overshadowed by the barking-mad comparison of gay rights advocates to cross-burning Klansmen, but the description of Ann Coulter as "mainstream" is astounding in its own right: Among other offenses against decency, Coulter has suggested President Clinton should be assassinated and said she wished Tim McVeigh blew up the New York Times building. She's "mainstream" only in comparison to Farah.