Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Terry Krepel has an interesting article at the Huffington Post about the Worldnutdaily's relentless pimping of Orly Taitz and the birther nonsense. He chronicles how the Worldnutdaily consistently distorts their coverage of Taitz, leaving out relevant information and focusing instead on highly contrived emotionalism (just as Taitz herself does constantly in the courtroom, provoking the ire of many a judge in the process). And then he sums up why this matters:
Such failure to report basic, factual information is not accidental, or is it incompetence. It is a deliberate effort on the the part of WorldNetDaily to decieve its readers.Why would WND do this? Because it has a lot invested -- the reputations of the website and its employees, from Joseph Farah on down, not to mention a money-generating side business -- in the birther conspiracy, and in Taitz. If Taitz is discredited, the birther conspiracy is too ... and so are Farah and WND.
Therefore, WND must hide the truth about Taitz from its readers. They can't know the increasingly shaky foundations upon which its signature conspiracy rests.
They can't know about the California bar complaints against Taitz. Or fellow birther lawyer Philip Berg's lawsuit against her. Or all the facts behind Judge Land's $20,000 fine.
In short: If Taitz goes down, so does WorldNetDaily. That's what Farah and Co. are afraid of.
Frankly, I doubt that's true. The mentality of the Worldnutdaily's target audience is such that the failure of the birther movement and Orly Taitz will have little effect on the site's readership. If credibility mattered to them, they wouldn't be Worldnutdaily fans in the first place.
Politics
Comments
As has been stated on previous threads, it is highly unlikely that Mr. Farah really believes the birther crap, any more then Ann Coulter believes 90% of the crap she writes. It's nothing more then a moneymaking proposition for him and he couldn't care less about the saps that take it seriously.
Posted by: SLC | November 6, 2009 9:14 AM
The 'Nut' actually backed away from the birther crap early on but then I suppose Farah scented cash. Bumper stickers and DVDs sell well apparently. Credulous money spends just as well as smart money.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 6, 2009 9:30 AM
Ed stated:
I'd argue that's the minimum result. It seems to me that the result of a conservative movement that's failed to govern is to get even crazier, not just in terms of its ideas and arguments, but also in their leaders. So I think you are correct Ed that they won't lose readers if by some rare occurence the birfers admitted they're wrong, instead I think the WND's challenge is to keep up with the craziness of the conservative movement given their niche is to be slightly loonier than Fox News, AM Talk Radio, and most concerning - the formal leaders of the Republican party. In order to continue to feed the beast, new loonier memes must be marketed.
I'd like to propose a possibly non-original meme where I can't seem to find the source: "Liberal" (read all non-conservatives) Americans are not actually human. Instead they are aliens not of this earth and merely posing as humans who are here to destroy humanity.
The value of this meme to the conservative movement is:
a) it provides justification to violently revolt against the "usurper" in the White House, and
b) justify their current argument that they really do speak and represent the majority of Americans - in spite of last fall's election and contra to current polling data.
This argument regarding their enjoying majority representation with the people that we hearing now from the Republican party's formal leadership, i.e., House Minority Leader John Boehner and MN Rep. Michele Bachmann. In addition, Rep. Eric Kantor is following Rush Limbaugh's lead and proclaiming that this recession is "Obama's economy".
Yesterday Representatives Bachmann and Boehner implied justification for a violent revolt when speaking to Teabaggers in a protest yesterday. Their clumisly parsed rhetoric provided cover for plausible deniability that's what they actually meant (along with Bohner claiming fealty to the Constitution and then reading the beginning of the DofI while claiming it was the Constitution).
This racheting up of looniess by the GOP leadership presents the WND with new challenges in how to stay ahead of the craziness generated by the supposedly main-stream elements of the modern-day GOP. I say go with the idea that "liberals" are non-human aliens.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 6, 2009 9:39 AM
Nice one, but I'd suggest a bit of refinement. Your Commiess From Mars should be identical to 'humans' in every way (apart from speaking French and voting for the wrong guys) but would be identifiable at post-mortem by the hammer-and-sickle/swastika/crescent moon/Sailor Moon logo burned into their "heart". If, in the interests of Security, we gotta chop a few open, well it's a messy job but someone's gotta do it.
Posted by: Amadan | November 6, 2009 10:11 AM
What are you kool aid drinkers afraid of? That your commander in theif will be found a fraud? Explore this:
if I am your prospective employer for a high clearance position and I call you in for a second interview and tell you that I like your resume' and think that you will be a welcome addition to my work force and ask you to provide a certified copy of your birth certificate,education records and passport, do you spend $10 and obtain a certified certificate of LIVE BIRTH or do you spend $1.7 million (of taxpayer money) to hide it?
When you pick your Kool Aid flavor make sure it has the Jimmy Jones label, OK?
Posted by: ladynred70461 | November 6, 2009 10:35 AM
if I am your prospective employer for a high clearance position and I call you in for a second interview and tell you that I like your resume' and think that you will be a welcome addition to my work force and ask you to provide a certified copy of your birth certificate,education records and passport, do you spend $10 and obtain a certified certificate of LIVE BIRTH or do you spend $1.7 million (of taxpayer money) to hide it?
Nah, no one's that stupid.
Posted by: gwangung | November 6, 2009 10:40 AM
Re: 5) Is that you Orly?
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 6, 2009 10:41 AM
There ya go. Now Go Forth and Multiply, troll.
(and eeeewwwwwww: of all the Chris de Burgh songs to name yourself after...)
Posted by: Amadan | November 6, 2009 10:47 AM
Terry Krepel's reasoned argument fails precisely because it is that: reasoned argument. The 'nutters, birfers and troofers are not reasonable.
Just as creationists use cargo cult science, and alt. med. quacks use cargo cult medicine, so 'Nutters use cargo cult reporting. It adopts the mannerisms of fact-based reporting and reason-based commentary, but only to give its lunacy a veneer of credibility.
But I would say that in my gullibabilibitty, as I have been taken in by a conspiracy so deep and so long planned that it started in 1961 when conspirators planted birth notices in a newspaper in Hawaii! OH NOES! The socialists have planned their take-over and destruction of The Yoonighted sTaitz in the early 1960s!!!
Posted by: Sam C | November 6, 2009 11:00 AM
ladynred70461 - Since you've been living under a rock (or are a lizardoid from Mars or something), I'll re-cap briefly:
a) President Obama has already provided his certified Birth Certificate to those relevant officials (just like all presidents since President Jimmy Carter at least).
b) President Obama posted the document on the Internet so everyone could inspect it. It was examined, and declared genuine, it was confirmed to be accurate by the Republican officials from Hawaii. Guess what? It showed he was born in Honolulu, making him a natural-born citizen by soil.
c) Further corroborating evidence of birth announcements have been produced (one posted by the hospital, one by the family), which confirm the time and place of birth of President Obama.
d) Even if President Obama were not a natural-born citizen by virtue of being born on US soil, he would be a natural-born citizen by blood (his mother is a natural-born US citizen by both soil and blood)
e) President Obama has spent exactly $10 on this issue, no more.
f) The birfers have not produced a single scrap of evidence to disprove any of the above facts, nor even a creditable theory of any kind of crime having been committed. Until they can do so, the 'golden thread' of the presumption of innocence applies.
Now you're (sort of) up to speed, let's hear arguments, backed up with actual evidence. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 6, 2009 11:04 AM
I'd like to propose a possibly non-original meme where I can't seem to find the source: "Liberal" (read all non-conservatives) Americans are not actually human. Instead they are aliens not of this earth and merely posing as humans who are here to destroy humanity. "
ABC is already on it: it's called "V". You really think it's a coincidence that that lame remake of a lame '80s series came out now?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2009 11:06 AM
ladyinred can't be Taitz - No serious spelling and grammar errors.
Sorry to feed the troll but... If my employer was asking for something, regardless of cost, that was not legally required, I might refuse on principle. I might suspect that I was being discriminated against and refuse to do more than any other applicant had been required to do. And if not hired as a result, I might sue for, say, 1.7 million.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 6, 2009 11:09 AM
I think that WND and Orly's relentless pimping of their nonsense and especially their encouraging service members to challenge legitimate orders is part of the same mental outlook that fueled the Fort Hood shootings the other day.
Posted by: Chilidog | November 6, 2009 12:35 PM
Raging Bee:
You beat me to my post of "V is a documentary?!"
I'll have to disagree with you on the "lame" description of V (the original miniseries, not the lame TV series later). I rather enjoyed it, so, for me any way, it wasn't lame. We must have different tastes.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | November 6, 2009 12:40 PM
Chilidog: much as I'd love to blame WND for the Ft. Hood incident, the facts don't support it. That shooter was just a guy who snapped when facing multiple pressures that he wasn't quite equipped to handle. Besides, he was a devout Muslim, of immigrant parents, not a nativist birther or teabagger.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 6, 2009 1:05 PM
I'm sorry, MikeMa, but in order to allow you to continue to comment on this blog, I will need a Certificate of Not Feeding the Trolls -- and the LONG FORM to boot! What have you got to hide???
Posted by: James Sweet | November 6, 2009 1:24 PM
ladynred70461, #5: ...provide a certified copy of your birth certificate,education records and passport....
Educational records, that I can see. Not that it's relevant in Obama's case, since the only qualifications for President are spelled out in the Constitution, and there is no education requirement to be President. Maybe there ought to be, but that would require an amendment.
But both a birth certificate and a passport? What ever for? If I were asked for both, I would assume that the company was run by morons and I'd seek employment elsewhere.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 6, 2009 1:35 PM
Walton: "the only thing that will stop this happening is the continuing use of military force against the Taliban."
How? Dropping bombs on people until they stop hating you for it? Until they want to be like you?
You respond: Something like "We've got to do something, and this is the only thing we can do, so we must do this".
Why must you do something? Because you're the right hand of god? What makes you think there's anything you can do?
There's only two options - stay or leave. Neither will improve the situation of women in Afganistan. Leaving might create a new disaster, or allow a new stability to form, which may even be more progressive.. Staying will only continue the current disaster.
Posted by: Kapitano | November 6, 2009 1:56 PM
Damn. Wrong thread. So much for carefully constructed comments. Mentally move it to the "Liberal, Feminist Case" thread.
Posted by: Kapitsno | November 6, 2009 1:58 PM
James Sweet @16,
It seems that the 'lady' is a drive by troll. Alas my snarky response was, as usual, ignored. I'll be photo-shopping that certificate this evening...
Posted by: MikeMa | November 6, 2009 2:41 PM
Any moment the Kool Aid Man is going to burst into this thread and shout, "It wasn't Kool Aid! It was Flavor Aid! Oh yeah!!!"
Posted by: Wes | November 6, 2009 3:12 PM
"If" Farah and WND are discredited?
Terry, that train left the station ages ago...
Posted by: CHV | November 6, 2009 4:41 PM
Chiroptera "But both a birth certificate and a passport? What ever for? If I were asked for both, I would assume that the company was run by morons and I'd seek employment elsewhere."
Welcome to America, m'lad. Welcome to America.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 6, 2009 6:39 PM
STEWIE: What's the hell's wrong with all of you? Leveticus 20:23 people!
BRIAN: Stewie, you can't just ignorantly quote random bible verses and think it's an argument, besides you can't even read.
STEWIE: Welcome to America Brian!
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2009 12:16 AM
DingoJack | November 6, 2009 11:04 AM exposes his Obot devotion, by admitting to eating the propaganda served, by Obama at the public feeding trough fightthesmears.
a) No he and his team, pointed to it on fightthesmears and basically said, "There it is, trust me" and they did.
b) No, it wasn't "declared genuine". Who said it was genuine, because Hawaii DOH won't confirm it. No, indicating a birth occurred in Hawaii, makes him a native born Hawaii citizen by soil. He is not a natural born citizen. A determination of NBC requires verification of the nationalities of both parents, birth location, and examination of the laws in effect at the time. The online document at fightthesmears, does not indicate natuionalities of the parents, and therefore cannot be relied on to determine NBC. Obama is a dual-national, and maybe a tri-national, but he is not eligible to be POTUS.
Those born of the blood OR the soil, are USA citizens. Those born of the blood of two citizens AND on USA soil, are USA Natural Born Citizens eligible for POTUS.
c) Newspaper birth announcements do not prove anything.
d) I don't know who taught you biology, but it requires two parents to cause a conception, that results in a child. Those born of the blood of two citizens AND on USA soil, are USA Natural Born Citizens eligible for POTUS. On February 2, 1961 - Barack Obama Sr., 25, an adult male, marries 18 year old Ann Dunham, a minor female. At the time of their wedding, Ann Dunham is already three months pregnant with Barack Obama, Jr., and she doesn't know Barack Obama Sr. has a wife and children in Kenya. Under Hawaii law they could not legally obtain a marriage license. They did not get married.
e) It's up to $1.7 million. Your share is 2 cents on your 2009 taxes.
Posted by: borderraven | November 7, 2009 1:33 AM
borderraven - in reverse order (just to shake it up a little)
e) Nope, wrong twice over, try again.
d) The citizenship of the President's father is irrelevant, his mother's citizenship is irrelevant; President Obama was born on US soil therefore is a natural-born citizen, check out your own DOJ and State Departments websites for details.
c) Ah, yes they do. THEY ARE CORROBATING EVIDENCE. It further establishes (over the evidence of the Birth Certificate validated by several independent witnesses and experts)that the President was born in Hawaii at the time he said he was. How do you explain their existence otherwise?
b) Actually the original documents were examined by witnesses who declared them to be Hawaiian Birth Certificates. Eyewitnesses. Your evidence that refutes these eyewitnesses is...? The Hawaiian DOH and the Hawaiian Governor both have confirmed the data on the Birth Certificate posted on-line by the President is exactly the same as the information in their database. Expert testimony. And the evidence you have to rebut these experts is...?
In fact your whole grasp on the citizenship thing is quite shaky. Firstly the citizenship status conferred on a person in one country has no effect on the citizenship status conferred by the US. Otherwise the PRK could retrospectively claim all US citizens were/are citizen of the PRK and take over the US. According to your own Government, natural-born citizens must be either born on US soul OR have AT LEAST ONE parent who is a natural-born citizen.
a) Birfers claim this (repeatedly) but the evidence of this is....?
Birfers are the ones making the extraordinary claims, let's see them produce their extraordinary evidence (or even a vaguely creditable theory). - DJ
---------------
BTW - if (and I really mean if) you could prove some kind of deliberate malfeasance by President Obama, only a joint sitting of the Senate and the House can move to impeach him. If he were removed, President pro tem. Joseph Biden would be sworn in. All bills and Presidential Orders put in place by the former President would stay in place.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 7, 2009 2:48 AM
BoringRaven:
Shorter DingoJack:
You're an idiot, STFU.
Posted by: democommie | November 7, 2009 8:13 AM
14th Amendment: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
If, big IF, Barack H. Obama II, was "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;" he is simply a US citizen, on his mother's side. But, it takes two persons to make a baby, and those two people are subject national jurisdictions.
The first part of the 14th Amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" is an "OR GATE" meaning either of the attributes "born in USA " or "naturalized in USA" meet first qualification.
The second part of the 14th Amendment "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", begins with an "AND GATE" meaning what follows applies to either of the two previous qualifications. Jurisdiction, in this sense refers to national laws and international treaties, concerning travel, migration, extradition, etc.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Dual Nationality
The concept of dual nationality means that a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Each country has its own citizenship laws based on its own policy. Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. ....
US State Department
.... dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. ....
-*-
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, to two persons, one a US citizen, the other a British subject. Resulting from his US parent Hawaii is his place of birth and he is a US citizen. Resulting from his British parent Hawaii is his place of birth and he is a British citizen.
Barack Hussein Obama II, was born in Hawaii, and he is a dual national.
By continuing the US Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, the USA has effectively nullified the Declaration of Independence and surrendered to the British, without a single shot or bloodshed.
By continuing the presidency of a dual-national, the USA sets a dangerous precedent, whereby all dual-nationals, regardless of their renouncing their foreign citizenship, can attempt to gain control, and eventually will gain control of the USA, within the US Constitution. Don't let us go down that road.
Posted by: borderraven | November 7, 2009 10:30 AM
Wow, borderraven, what a monumental accomplishment in the history of cutting and pasting without really thinking. It seems that this fantastic step fotward in human knowledge has escaped the notice of all judges, state and federal who have heard these cases, including the Supreme Court, all 538 members of Congress who ratified the election and all recognized legal scholars who have written on this subject. Only you have made this astonishing discovery.
Unfortunately, you are 128 years too late, since the case of a President born to one non-citizen parent has already been resolved. I speak of course of the very mediocre Chester Arthur, born in 1829 to a father who was a British citizen who did not become naturalized as a US citizen until 1843. Even in those days, prior to the Wong Kim Ark decision, no one had a problem with that.
Strangely enough, despite your dire (completely unsupported) hypothesis, the Republic survived the rule of President Arthur and in fact went on to even greater glory in the 128 years hence.
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 7, 2009 12:21 PM
David Icke to the white courtesy phone, please ...
(Yes, I know, he's actually British, and ...)
Posted by: llewelly | November 7, 2009 12:28 PM
By continuing the US Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama II, the USA has effectively nullified the Declaration of Independence and surrendered to the British, without a single shot or bloodshed.
Don't worry, borderraven, we've got a system worked out. Just remember: one if by land, two if by sea.
Posted by: Taz | November 7, 2009 12:58 PM
Re borderraven
Mr. borderraven is, of course totally full of shit. However, even if there was a question, no matter how obscure, as to the presidents' eligibility, the various law suits that have been filed are completely irrelevant. As both Judge Land and Judge Carter have pointed out, the courts have no jurisdiction in this matter. As Article II of the Constitution makes clear, the only method for removing a president from office is by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 vote of the Senate. The judicial branch of government has no authority to remove a president from office and therefore the courts can offer no remedy, even if the birthers' claims had some merit. Since the courts can offer no remedy, there is no point in their proceeding with the various law suits and thus they have been summarily dismissed on the basis of standing. Unless and until the birthers can make a convincing case before the Congress as to the presidents' non-eligibility, they are shit out of luck.
Posted by: SLC | November 7, 2009 7:58 PM
What I find absolutely fascinating about conspiracy theorists is their utter aversion to parsimonious explanations. They essentially use the inverse of Occam's Razor: the simplest theory that explains all the facts has to be rejected in favor of a monumental conspiracy. Because it just, you know, feels right.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 7, 2009 9:15 PM
Thanks for that information, borderraven. I suppose I'll have to let King George III's troops quarter in my home now.
Posted by: JakeS | November 8, 2009 11:53 AM
Re: "or do you spend $1.7 million (of taxpayer money) to hide it? ":
This is a particularly galling untruth.
There has NEVER been a case against Obama that simply asked him to show his birth certificate, which he has of course already shown. But, the point is that there was no case demanding that he show any birth certificate. All the cases before the election (which is about 70% of the cases, I estimate) were attempts to stop the election. Obama naturally opposed these cases.
By far most of the cases after the election (about 70% of the cases after the election, I estimate) were to stop the Electoral College from voting, stop the US Congress from certifying the election or stop the Inauguration.
The remaining cases also asked for such things as his Kindergarten records.
In any case, Obama has not spent whatever sum on keeping his birth certificate secret. He has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only one that Hawaii currently sends out. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html)
The Wall Street Journal commented:
"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."
Posted by: smrstrauss | November 8, 2009 3:02 PM
Re: "I like your resume' and think that you will be a welcome addition to my work force and ask you to provide a certified copy of your birth certificate,education records and passport."
Obama provided a certified copy of the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, which is the only one that Hawaii sends out. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).
The Wall Street Journal commented: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."
Regarding the education records and passport. IF they had been demanded during the election campaign and there was a chance that Obama would have lost, he would have been under pressure to show them. But that did not happen. He was elected without showing them.
NO president has ever shown his complete academic records (some have shown grade-point averages) and none has ever shown his passport. There is no law requiring that a president show such documents.
Your analogy to hiring an employee is flawed in that we have already hired this employee, and the only way to fire a president is through impeachment.
Re allegedly spent millions hiding. That's all baloney. Before the election all the law cases were to stop the election, not to show the birth certificate. After the election by far most of the cases were to stop the Electoral College, stop the Congress from certifying the election or stop the inauguration.
The remaining cases included demands that Obama show such things as his kindergarten records and housing records while he was at college, which Obama has every right to oppose, and I am glad that he does. He has the right of privacy, and he is protecting the privacy of future presidents. IN any case, these lawsuits also are not about the birth certificate, which Obama has already shown.
Posted by: smrstrauss | November 9, 2009 8:40 AM
The kindergarten records are critical to answering the question upon which the entire future of the human race depends, "Did he or did he not color outside of the lines?" Apparently borderraven can't sleep unless he knows and will continue posting on every site even remotely related to this topic until he gets an answer....
Posted by: JusticeLeague | November 9, 2009 8:59 AM