huffington post

huffington post: Page 2

Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Huffington Post investigative journalism arm funded by George Soros associate - 05/09/09

Earlier this year, the Huffington Post announced the creation of an "Investigative Fund" to do investigative journalism. The hilarity of the HuffPost doing real journalism is illustrated by the fact that almost six weeks later they haven't produced anything [1] and by their Z-list celebrities who had previously used a related tag [2].

And, while the announcements [3][4] mentioned the name of the Fund, they didn't mention the Soros connection (link):

The program's startup budget will be $1.75 million. The money will be provided by the Huffington Post and the Atlantic Philanthropies. The Bermuda-based Atlantic Philanthropies is headed by Gara LaMarche, who used to be a vice president of liberal uber-philanthropist George Soros's Open Society Institute. LaMarche is a member of Soros's Democracy Alliance, a billionaires' club that is organizing to impose socialism on America.


America's Voice offers very lightweight hit piece on Jeff Sessions - 05/07/09

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post directs [1] our attention to a new hit piece from Frank Sharry's America's Voice that claims that Sen. Jeff Sessions has "just one degree of separation from anti-immigrant hate groups, white nationalism" [2]. As a hit piece, this is like a marshmallow wrapped in a Snuggie.

For instance, they accuse him of playing the "terrorist card" in regards to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, including quoting a floor speech he made. Yet, they don't provide any sort of counter-argument other than implying that Senators shouldn't point out that the CIR bill would enable terrorists. If America's Voice could show that Sessions was wrong about that, they might have a case. Yet, they don't. Apparently they don't want Senators to discuss how a bill would endanger the U.S. or something.

Likewise with Sessions' list of loopholes in the CIR bill, including one that would allow those convicted of aggravated felonies to be amnestied. They don't try to say that he was wrong, they just imply that he shouldn't have mentioned that. The rest of the "backgrounder" consists of the same old warmed-over smears about FAIR and the Center for Immigration Studies, including this:

FAIR, which regularly praised Sessions, has been designated an anti-immigrant hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That might make some members of Congress think twice about developing a relationship with the group, but clearly not Jeff Sessions.

As detailed at the last link, the SPLC is not in any way a credible source. Some members of Congress are obviously dumb or far-left enough to put faith in what they say, but no one else should.


Low-wattage radio, TV hosts say dumb things about Mexicans and swine flu; leftwing attacks in order to support illegal activity - 04/30/09

Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post offers "Swine Flu A Mexican Immigrant Conspiracy: Conservative Media (VIDEO)" (, linking to a Media Matters for America video apparently containing instances of conservative radio and TV hosts discussing the issue of Mexicans

HuffPost: Obama not living up to campaign promises; women, minorities hardest hit - 04/28/09

Apparently Lloyd Chapman has never heard the old joke about the New York Times publishing a headline called "Comet to hit Earth; women, minorities hardest hit." If he had, he wouldn't have offered "Obama's First 100 Days Disappoints Women, Minorities and Small Businesses" (

HuffPost, The Atlantic, LGF, Gawker, Sullivan, C&L, & more spread smear video (Glenn Beck, "burn the books") - 04/12/09

The attached video is a local meetup for Glenn Beck's "912 Project" and features someone who's probably genuine giving an anti-Communism and partly paranoid rant. However, near the five minute mark, a lady's voice is heard shouting out "burn the books". She's then challenged by a male attendee who asks her whether she's serious; she replies that yes she is.

Did Barack Obama get his Social Security Number in Connecticut? (042-68-????) - 03/18/09

If you go here and do a find for 042-68 you'll see what purports to be the first part of Barack Obama's Social Security Number. According to the Social Security Administration, the 042 prefix indicates that the number was obtained in Connecticut:

Obviously, there are a lot of open questions here, and even if that is his real number what exactly it would prove isn't clear.

The person who generated the list of names, addresses, and SSNs is apparently Neil Sankey (, a former British policeman who's now a licensed private investigator in Los Angeles. A search here will show he has a clear record (actually, there are two records, one clear and one delinquent, with the latter probably just due to an address change; the clear one cancels out the other one).

If anyone can find some corroboration that that's really Obama's SSN, please leave a comment. Perhaps this is the real reason why he's so adamant about not releasing his college transcripts and the like.

UPDATE: As of late July 2009, this post is getting a lot of visitors. Could someone leave a comment explaining who mentioned this and when and where? Also, please see the Obama citizenship page for our extensive coverage of the wider issue.

5/11/10 UPDATE: I think the reason this got so many visitors is because Orly Taitz mentioned the issue on cable TV. Also, WorldNetDaily has another article about this issue here.

3/18/11 UPDATE: An updated article on this topic is here:

What [licensed investigator from Ohio named Susan Daniels] and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Palin: Barack Obama had been using a Social Security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life...

..."All I can say," says Daniels of 042-68-4425, "is that it's phony and [Obama] has been using it, with it first appearing on his Selective Service document in 1980."

Daniels sent me a copy of the hand-written application of the individual who held the number immediately before Obama's, 042-68-4424. The applicant, Thomas Wood, died at age 19, which is why his information is available.

Wood's Social Security number was issued sometime between March and May of 1977. Obama would turn 16 in August of that year. Wood lived on Glenview Drive in Newington, Conn., the state from which all "042s" applied. Obama lived in Hawaii...

..."Numbers are assigned based on the return address on the request envelope, not residency," crowed Jason Linkins in the Huffington Post as though he had said something meaningful. Linkins suggested two possible explanations, both preposterous...

Jeffrey Feldman /Huffington Post invites your mockery (Glenn Beck, FEMA camps) - 03/15/09

Over at Huffington Post, someone named Jeffrey Feldman offers the hilarious 'Glenn Beck Recycles "X-Files" Plot to Spread Fear of Obama' ( Let's not all laugh at once but ration it out over time:

FOX News personality, Glenn Beck, has been using his airtime to broadcast a right-wing conspiracy theory about the Obama administration setting up 'concentration camps,'part of a secret plot to establish totalitarian rule... Beck's conspiracy theory appears to be lifted directly from FOX Searchlight's 1998 movie The X-Files. In the film, a character named Alvin Kurtzweil (Martin Landau), warns FBI agent Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) about plans by FEMA to manufacture a federal emergency as a pretext for extending martial law, mass imprisonment, and totalitarian rule, thereby allowing a group of interplanetary aliens to take over the world.

The first difference is, of course, that Beck isn't discussing aliens. And, concerns over what FEMA could do in the case of an emergency - manufactured or otherwise - go back even before Feldman's greatly limited experience. See, for instance, "Oliver North Questioned - Rex 84 Exposed During Iran Contra" (link). Doing a search will reveal a wealth of other information that goes back well before the movie and that doesn't just come from the right. One doesn't have to be an old fogey or even have had any knowledge of talk about FEMA camps to do even a basic search.

What Larisa Alexandrovna doesn't want you to see - 02/16/09

Larisa Alexandrovna of RawStory and "At-Largely" (also a Huffington Post contributor) doesn't want her readers to see how she's misleading them. Read on to see why you can't trust her reporting.

Patt Morrison's greatest journalistic accomplishment: getting a thrift shop to change their name (Sarah Palin) - 02/14/09

During the campaign, Sarah Palin said that her favorite place to shop was a thrift store in Anchorage called ''Out of the Closet". I happen to know that there's also a chain of gay-benefiting shops in Los Angeles by the same name. If I had initiated the process whereby that chain considered filing a trademark infringement case against the Alaska store and that store had then changed their name to "Second Run", the last thing I'd do is crow about it. In fact, I'd try to prevent anyone from finding out that I was so petty, so incredibly low-class, so lower than a snake's belly, so small-minded.

Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times has no such compunctions (

I am proud to say that in my blog here and at the Los Angeles Times, I busted the Alaska shop's chops, right after Palin said it was her favorite boutique. The next day, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, citing Palin's remarks and my post, announced that it was looking into trademark infringement by the Anchorage store... With a name like ["Second Run"], it can still be Sarah Palin's favorite store. She can buy her 2012 campaign wardrobe there. With her own money.

This is truly Pat Morrisson's greatest, single journalistic achievement and a shining example of the MSM's keen interest in real reporting.

Kirsten Gillibrand: "family reunification is a core value of America" - 02/14/09

Mark Green and the Huffington Post conducted an interview with Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and as one might imagine, they simply asked puffballs and failed to follow-up ( That includes the part where she said that "family reunification is a core value of America". In fact, such chain migration has only been a core part of our laws since around 1965 (link).

She also continues to think she could solve the eight year legal immigration backlog in six months; see this and this.

The rest of her statement could have been made by any other amnesty-supporting puppet and is included below.

Bill Ayers goes from terrorist to Huffington Post blogger - 01/02/09

Via HotAir comes the news that largely unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers is now blogging over at the Huffington Post: link The subject is not, "How to make a nail-bomb designed to kill" but the more prosaic "Obama and Education Reform":
Of course I would have loved to have seen Linda Darling-Hammond become Secretary of Education in an Obama administration... [what she supposedly stands for offers] a neat contrast with the four failed urban school superintendents--Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, Paul Vallas, and Arne Duncan -- who were for weeks rumored to be her chief competition.

These four, like George W. Bush's Secretary of Education, Rod Paige of the fraudulent Texas-miracle, have little to show in terms of school improvement beyond a deeply dishonest public relations narrative. Teacher accountability, relentless standardized testing, school closings, and privatization -- this is what the dogmatists and true-believers of the right call "reform."

...[If I were president] I would have picked Noam Chomsky for state, Naomi Klein for defense, Bernardine Dohrn for Attorney General, Bill Fletcher for commerce, James Thindwa for labor, Barbara Ransby for human services, Paul Krugman for treasury, and Amy Goodman for press secretary

The Star Spanglish Banner and Barack the Magic Negro tear up the RNC chart - 12/29/08

The latest way for the MSM and the Democratic Party to portray the Republican Party as home of knuckle-dragging racists was, ultimately, self-inflicted by Chip Saltsman, a candidate to be chair of the RNC. Saltsman is a former head of the Tennessee Republican Party who managed the Mike Huckabee campaign and who recently distributed a Christmas CD containing parody songs, including some from Paul Shanklin which are "controversial". To a good extent, the two songs I've reviewed are only controversial because they were made so. Unfortunately, that's not a full defense of Saltsman's actions because he should have known how it would be received and either selected a different battle or come with more troops.

The first is "Barack the Magic Negro" (link), a take-off on Al Sharpton based off of a Los Angeles Times guest editorial from David Ehrenstein called, ta da, "Obama the 'Magic Negro'" (link). MSM sources bury the genesis of the song at the end or pretend that the genesis is only what Saltsman says rather than what is clearly the truth. And, this has also caused the formation of a circular firing squad and caused Saltsman to go on the defensive and issue PC pieties. For examples of all those, see "RNC Chairman Candidates Split on Charged Stocking Stuffer" (link) from Michael Shear of the Washington Post. This quote from Saltsman is buried at the end:
"Liberal Democrats and their allies in the media didn't utter a word about David Ehrenstein's irresponsible column in the Los Angeles Times last March. But now, of course, they're shocked and appalled by its parody on 'The Rush Limbaugh Show,' " Saltsman said in a statement today, referring to the op-ed article that reportedly inspired the song lyrics... "I firmly believe that we must welcome all Americans into our party and that the road to Republican resurgence begins with unity, not division. But I know that our party leaders should stand up against the media's double standards and refuse to pander to their desire for scandal."
Another track is "Star Spanglish Banner". The lyrics for that are below and you can hear it here. I assume that the person who made that video is unaffiliated with Saltsman or Shanklin, but the images are fitting considering that the topic of the song is political support for illegal immigration. About the only thing somewhat offensive about the song is the kindergarten-level pun on "Jose"/"O say", and perhaps the somewhat inaccurate use of the word Spanglish; regarding the last, see Cheech and Chong.

The rest of the song is a satire on uninvolved citizens and on politicians who support illegal activity, and so because of that it's easy to see why the MSM, the Democrats, and some Republicans would want to portray it in a bad light.

UPDATE: Jim Acosta of CNN offered a report on the "controversy" that completely failed to mention the LAT piece. Not only that, but it included less-than-flattering stills of those involved, and rolling video of a raging Rush Limbaugh without providing any sort of context. And, that's not all: it included Karl Frisch of Media Matters for America referring to the song as "hate", and implied that rightwing radio was full of "hate". But, wait Acosta had even more: he offered a highly edited quote from Saltzman; presumably he cut out any sort of effective defense Saltzman had provided to CNN.

Continuing the idiocracy, the titular MSNBC host said she wouldn't find it funny if someone referred to her as "Tamron Hall the Magic Negro Anchor Lady". Obviously, whatever argument she's trying to make is fallacious, given - once again - the original LAT piece that kicked everything off. Needless to say, idiots are trying to resell her illogical comments, including [[ Nicholas Graham]] of the Huffington Post ( and Ben Armbruster of ThinkProgress (

Marin Cogan/TNR's massive Fairness Doctrine strawman - 11/20/08

Marin Cogan of the New Republic offers "Bum Rush/Obama's secret plan to muzzle talk radio. Very, very secret." ( The supposed "reporter-researcher" looks for evidence that the Democrats want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and can't find it. She therefore concludes that the Democrats don't want to try to muzzle rightwing talk radio.

New smear: Palin didn't know Africa was a continent or the three countries in NAFTA - 11/05/08


An unnamed John McCain aide supposedly told Carl Cameron of Fox News - a tool if there ever was one - that Sarah Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent instead of a country. The aide also told him that she didn't know which countries were in NAFTA. Needless to say, this comes on the heels of a long line of smears against Palin, and it's almost assuredly a smear as well. She obviously knows about Canada, and she also obviously knows about Mexico. There's the slight possibility that she thought that some of the countries that are in Central America were in North America, but that probably isn't likely either. So, this doesn't even pass very basic scrutiny.

For those just dropping by, there's probably almost no chance that the allegations are true and someone is playing a game.

Unfortunately, it might be an effective smear because of the foundation that the mainstream media laid in order to help Obama become president; many of the things you "know" about Palin are actually lies planted by the Obama campaign and/or the mainstream media (as if they were that separate).

See this for the transcript of the interview, this or this for some thoughts on the palace intrigue aspects (noting that the second is just speculation), and this for the video.

What's especially worrisome about this from the standpoint of an informed electorate is that, at the same time that this smear is spreading, Obama supports a Bush trade scheme known as "NAFTA Plus" (the Security and Prosperity Partnership, that might be a precursor to joining the three countries of North America.

When coming out in support of that Bush trade scheme, Obama spoke in code. And, I have yet to see someone besides me and Obama himself discussing the fact that he supports that scheme. His editorial supporting Bush's scheme appeared in the Dallas Morning News, but no one else wants to discuss what he supports.

The visitor should decide which is more important: a smear, or a secretive Bush trade scheme. Then, take those pushing the smear to task. And, note that those calling Palin dumb are actually the dumb ones: they can't figure out that this is clearly a planted smear and they're just being useful idiots.

~~ Who's helping spread the smear? ~~

* The Huffington Post (of course) has it at, and that has over 2200 Diggs (of course)

* Andrew Sullivan has completely bought it without any reservations whatsoever:
Can you trust anyone who'd be so gullible?

* Faiz Shakir of ThinkProgress also completely buys it:

* However, in a report oddly similar to the one from HotAir linked above, ksh01 of DailyKos implicitly throws some cold water on this by discussing the palace intrigue aspects:

10/20/09 UPDATE: The full story is still not known, but it appears that a real McCain staffer said the things listed above to Carl Cameron. Then, a prankster tried to glom onto the story, pretending that he was that staffer. However, at this point in time it appears that the prankster wasn't the one who told Cameron the things listed above.

This quotes him as saying it was "senior McCain staff" who "put this out", and from this:

The pranksters behind [Martin Eisenstadt] acknowledge that he was not, through them, the anonymous source of the Palin leak. He just claimed falsely that he was the leaker--and they say they have no reason to cast doubt on the original story. For its part, Fox News Channel continues to stand behind its story.

ADN: AP Palin story on pipeline bids was "remarkably skewed" (Justin Pritchard, Garance Burke) - 11/01/08

The Anchorage Daily News - a paper that's endorsed Obama - offers "Misfire at Palin" (link) about last week's Associated Press "investigation" from Justin Pritchard and Garance Burke about bids for a major Alaskan pipeline project [1].
This report from The Associated Press is a remarkably skewed account with little new information to support the charge it implies. Presumably, readers are supposed to conclude that Palin tilted the gas line bidding toward a favored company, one that had previously employed one of her key staffers.

Here's the truth: The pipeline terms were not "Palin's." They were the terms requested by the sovereign state of Alaska, as provided in the Alaska Constitution.

While Palin did indeed start by proposing very similar bid terms, all of Alaska's key decisions about those terms and the contract award itself were made through an unusually open public process that culminated in formal and enthusiastic approval from the Alaska Legislature.
10/18/09 UPDATE: On October 29, 2008, the Juneau Empire offered "Democrats join defense of Palin, natural gas pipeline/Lawmakers say report by Associated Press was unfair to governor" (link):
"I thought it was a pretty shoddy reporting job, honestly," said Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, among many Democrats and supporters of Barack Obama who are coming to Palin's defense.

...Sen. Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, Senate minority leader, called the story "way off base."

...The AP story quoted only two legislators, Senate President Lyda Green, R-Wasilla, and Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, both in the minority who voted against the TransCanada deal.

Juneau Rep. Beth Kerttula said AP reporter Burke talked with her, but didn't include her defense of Palin.

"I don't believe Gov. Palin should become vice president, but I don't think this story was fair and accurate," she said.
[1] "Palin pipeline terms curbed bids"

Dana Milbank/WaPo's dangerous smear of Sarah Palin, supporters - 10/06/08

Unctuous liar Dana Milbank - last discussed here in May regarding him misleading for Barack Obama - is back with an even more disgusting smear. This one a) portrays Sarah Palin supporters as bloodthirsty yahoos, b) tries to give the impression that Palin doesn't renounce bloodthirsty yahoos, and c) most importantly, raises the specter of Barack Obama being assassinated by a Palin supporter.

Discussing a speech today in Florida ("In Fla., Palin Goes for the Rough Stuff as Audience Boos Obama", link), he first downplays Barack Obama's links to Bill Ayers ("[m]any independent observers say Palin's allegations are a stretch; Obama served on a Chicago charitable board with Ayers, now an education professor, and has condemned his past activities"). Then:
"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.

"Boooo!" said the crowd.

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Palin went on to say that "Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago." Here, Palin began to connect the dots...
1. There's no indication that Palin heard the "one man in the audience". Even if she did, she can't be responsible for what others shout out. Milbank doesn't say whether she heard him, leaving that up to the reader's fevered imagination.

2. Milbank is trying to portray Palin's audience as composed of yahoos, when similar call and response happens at most political rallies, especially those conducted by Obama.

3. Milbank almost certainly knew that some people would think that the "one man in the audience" was referring to Obama, causing some to smear the GOP, Palin supporters, and any other Obama opponents and also introducing an even more vile component to the campaign than both campaigns - but especially Obama's - have done so far.

The last point is bolstered by at least two widely-read "liberals" intentionally or unintentionally taking the comment in that sense. Josh Micah Marshall pretends he doesn't know who the shout was referring to ("Who They Are, What They're About",, discussed in a demagogic way at, as does Jeralyn Merritt ('Palin Ignores Supporter Who Yells "Kill Him" After She Insults Obama',

UPDATE: Milbank's despicable smear spreads to the HuffPost, with Jeffrey Feldman saying "McCain Campaign Amplifies Violent Rhetoric, GOP Crowds Threaten Obama's Life" ( and Nico Pitney and Seth Colter Walls offering 'Obama Hatred On Display Again At Palin Rally, Supporter Screams "Treason!"' ( Both reference Milbank's article.

UPDATE 2: Another Milbank reference hits Daily Kos' front page, this from "BarbinMD" at

UPDATE 3: There's a discussion of Milbank's smear here including a round-up of others who took his smear and ran with it. That also discusses two other MSM reports from the same rally that described a much more placid event than Milbank's invention.

Scott Shane/NYT's pro-BHO spin on Bill Ayers/Barack Obama collaboration - 10/04/08

Scott Shane of the New York Times offers "Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths" (originally titled "Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close"). If you believe the NYT, then everything's fine and dandy, and Barack Obama and 60s radical Bill Ayers are not close. The fact that they aren't close and never were close and nothing funny went on and there's nothing to see here is especially important because Ayers is a former and allegedly unrepentant terrorist who's since been, in Shane's words, "rehabilitated".

On the other hand, if you actually want the truth, compare the second paragraph on page 2 ("In fact, according to several people involved...") to the email here. Why, it's almost like Shane is reading from a script provided by Ken Rolling, the former executive director of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

And, for much more, see this response to the article: NYT's Ayers-Obama Whitewash. Regarding Scott Shane letting Ayers claim that he mostly only wanted to do property damage with his bombs, see this.

See also this from Steve Diamond:

an exchange of letters in late 1994, copies of which I obtained from Brown University, between Vartan Gregorian, then President of Brown and the individual responsible for assessing applications for grants from the national Annenberg Challenge, and Bill Ayers, the founder of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, demonstrates that Ayers played a direct role in "composing" the Challenge's board of directors... I was interviewed at length by the New York Times for today’s story. In fact, this was the third Times reporter to interview me about the Ayers/Obama relationship - and I provided the Times with the letters I discuss here. They are not mentioned in the story at all.

See also "Ayers Was on Woods Fund Board with Obama When He Stepped on Flag" (LGF, That links to this August 2001 Chicago Magazine article entitled "No Regrets"; it includes a picture of Bill Ayers stepping on a U.S. flag. It also links to 'Obama served on a board with former Weather Underground member William Ayers and "that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11"', a fact check of a Hillary Clinton statement about Obama's association with Ayers (link). They agree that her statement was truthful.

And, see this:

It turns out as these ten key points confirm what I have argued all along - that Bill Ayers was responsible for the elevation of Obama to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge board and the New York Times reporting on this story actually supports my conclusion, though inadvertently.

BHO and Ayers also appeared at a far-left University of Chicago 11/20/1997 event about juvenile justice (link, copy here). The article also quotes Michelle Obama.

10/9/08: Obama lies again, with this being the latest explanation for his actions: "The gentleman in question, Bill Ayers, is a college professor, teaches education at the University of Illinois... That's how i met him -- working on a school reform project that was funded by an ambassador and very close friend of Ronald Reagan's" along with "a bunch of conservative businessmen and civic leaders... Ultimately, I ended up learning about the fact that he had engaged in this reprehensible act 40 years ago, but I was eight years old at the time and I assumed that he had been rehabilitated." (link) As indicated above, Obama continued working with him after 9/11/01, when even the most willingly blind person could see what Ayers was all about.

~ Who's helping the NYT spread their spin? ~

The people listed below all share one thing in common: they pretend that that NYT was actually trying to write an investigative report rather than a cover-up, and they all come to the conclusion that there's nothing there because the NYT says there's nothing there. Whether they actually believe that or whether they're just trying to sell the NYT's lies isn't clear.

* Steve Benen of Washington Monthly says the NYT "couldn't find any dirt", trying to make his readers think the NYT was looking for dirt rather than covering for BHO (washingtonmonthly. com/archives/individual/2008_10/015024.php). A comment I left was later deleted.

* Ben Smith from The Politico tries a similar technique: "though the Times has pinned down a couple of new details on the relationship, there's no real news, and the main new detail is exculpatory: A different Chicago figure picked Obama to chair an education fund. The conservative blog reaction to the story is outrage, as it has failed to turn up the secret Rosetta Stone that many seem to believe will reveal some deeper truth about Obama's politics." (

* Juliet Eilperin of the Washington Post ( She starts out with snark and a lie: "It turns out GOP vice presidential nominee does like the mainstream media after all -- at least, when it's publishing unflattering stories about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama." The NYT article isn't "unflattering", it's an attempt at a cover-up.

She then spins the story the same way the BHO campaign does: "In fact, both a Washington Post article in April and today's New York Times piece revealed Obama and Ayers to have had only a casual association: the former radical hosted a coffee for Obama's first bid for state Senate, they served together on an educational charity board and both live in Chicago's Hyde Park."

The WaPo article she mentions is "Former '60s Radical Is Now Considered Mainstream in Chicago" by Peter Slevin (link). That WaPo article is even more of a cover-up than the one from the NYT; in fact, almost everything in there tries to portray Ayers as an upstanding member of his community, and the only link to Obama is this cozy scene: The two men served for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group. The board, which Obama has since left, was small and collegial, said chair Laura Washington, who served with them. It met four times a year for a half-day, mostly to approve grants, she said. The atmosphere was "friendly but businesslike." Needless to say, a real reporter would try to determine what Washington isn't saying, but that leaves Peter Slevin out.

* Michael Shaw of the Huffington Post - who concentrates on a lightweight interpretation of images - basically reads from the card he's been handed: "all kinds of long hashed-over and discredited innuendos... resuscitating feeble allegations -- all then discounted..." (

* Martina Stewart of CNN references the NYT article and then says: "Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship." (says) However, an earlier version of the article - the change not noted - had "The National Review" in place of "The New Republic". (link) Presumably that was just a mistake and not (like their other coverage) an attempt to deceive.

* Sockpuppets, various. BHO supporters are clogging up MSM comments boards with Winner-style attacks. See, for instance, the 04:15 PM comment from "John" and the 04:26 PM comment from "Larry" at and the 8:06 PM comment from Luke2 and the 7:34 PM comment from seemstome at If I didn't think they were just citizens voicing their opinions I'd think they were actually paid workers for the Obama campaign.

* Izvestia, aka CNN, offers a "Fact Check" that discusses Sarah Palin's comment that BHO is "palling around with terrorists" (link). Obviously, Palin should have put it in the correct legalistic format: "in the recent past, Barack Obama has worked with and associated with known and unrepentant terrorists". If she had, CNN wouldn't have been able to pretend that her non-legalistic formation was binding: 'Verdict: False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.' No really: they actually try to pretend that her imprecise wording is more important than BHO's past collaboration with and association with a terrorist.

* Todd Beeton links to both CNN and the NYT and continues the trends discussed above:

* Obsequious toady, repeat liar, and supporter of illegal activity Joe Klein offers "Embarracuda", an obvious attempt to deceive ( Needless to say, he downplays the Obama-Ayers connection and even works in a BHO talking point about how BHO was just a child when the Weather Underground were terrorizing the U.S.: Over the weekend, [Sarah Palin] picked up on an article in The New York Times, which essentially says that Barack Obama and the former terrorist Bill Ayers have crossed paths in Chicago, served on a couple of charitable boards together, but aren't particularly close. To Palin--or her scriptwriters--this means that Obama has been "palling around" with terrorists. Now, I wish Ayers had done some serious jail time; he certainly needed to pay some penance for his youthful criminality--even if most people in Chicago, including the mayor, have decided that he has something of value to say about education. But I can also understand how Obama, who was a child when Ayers was cutting his idiot swath, would not quite understand the enormity of the professor's background...

* Scott Conroy of CBS News offers "Lagging In The Polls, Palin Shifts To Fear Tactics" (, which follows 10/4's equally biased "Palin Says She Wants To Talk About Issues, Adds That Obama Pals With A Terrorist" ( In the first article he says: '[Palin] said [Obama and Ayers] had a relationship akin to being "pals," even though the Associated Press and many other news outlets have concluded that Obama and Ayers' relationship added up to far less than a close friendship.' Needless to say, that's extremely disingenuous.

* Dana Milbank of the Washington Post.

10/6/08 UPDATE: The latest lie from the BHO campaign is that BHO had little knowledge of the radical past of Ayers and the Weatherman group. This was presented by David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs (; see Joe Klein retailing their lie above.

Sarah Palin rape kit smear: chronology (Mary Pemberton/AP, DailyKos, Americablog, Eric Croft, Obama campaign) - 09/29/08

Since around September 8, various sites and news organizations have tried to push the smear that Sarah Palin knowingly charged victims in Wasilla, Alaska for rape kits, and that her city stood alone in that practice. As it turns out, those claims are false (link). How did this start? A chronology is here [1], and an amplification is below.

One of the "hidden hands" behind the smear appears to be Alaskan Democrats, such as former Democratic state representative Eric Croft, quoted in the AP story on 9/11 and the CNN story on 9/23. The Obama campaign apparently first got involved around 9/15, although they knew about it as early as 9/12 after the 9/11 AP story. Whether they were involved before will probably never be known, absent obtaining emails to bloggers.


5/23/2000: the local Frontiersman paper published this article.

9/01/08: this blog post mentions it, but that doesn't appear to have been noticed by anyone else so its role as the origin of the smear is doubtful.

9/03/08: the blog "Indiscriminate and Arbitrary Deliberation" run by "George" mentions it here. He had only joined Blogger in August, and his other blog covers cooking pies (link). He doesn't appear to get much traffic, he appears to be a Dennis Kucinich fan, and he appears to be "writing above his pay grade". His sidebar links to some leftwing sites and presumably he also comments there. Perhaps this could be the origin of the smear.

9/08/08: this was the day the Frontiersman story "broke" across blogs. The first mention might have been at a site run by wannabe comic Dave Anthony (link). That was apparently posted at 4pm PST. It was picked up by Americablog [2] at 5pm PST and then at 6pm PST by "Steven R" at DailyKos [3] and then by "Jo Fish" at FDL [4]. Other sites involved were Op Edna [5] and Dave Harding at ProgressOhio [6].

9/09/08: it was picked up by Eric Schmeltzer at the Huffington Post [7].

9/11/08: Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press moved the smear from bloggers to major newspapers, offering this:

Former Democratic Rep. Eric Croft, who sponsored that bill, said he was disappointed that simply asking the Wasilla police department to stop didn't work. Croft said he doubts she was unaware of the practice.

9/12/08: Joe Sudbay of Americablog said this [8]:

Listened to the Obama campaign press conference call this morning. The very first question from a reporter is why the campaign hasn't highlighted the rape kit story. The reporter said, every time I tell someone that story they look at me like I said there is no Santa Claus... Obama campaign chief spokesman Bill Burton's response... "We're familiar with it. Saw the AP story. We are familiar with it."

If anyone knows which "reporter" it was that was trying to devise smears for the BHO campaign, please leave a comment.

9/15/08: the Barack Obama campaign began looking for a rape victim to appear in a TV ad (link).

Kiersten Steward, director of public policy at the Family Violence Prevention Fund, served as a conduit between the campaign and victims and women's advocates... though she never was told about the nature of the commercial, [victims advocate Mikele Shelton-Knight] said she thought that the focus of the ad may be about the practice in Wasilla, Alaska, to charge rape victims to pay for their own exams... Shelton-Knight said Palin should not be criticized for having governed a city with such a law as they were quite common until recent years... Alaska didn't pass a bill until 2000 requiring state and local law endorcement to pay for the exams. And Shelton-Knight said it wasn't until lobbying by her and others that Virginia last year put the financial burden on localities. Many states still charge victims for the cost of the exam.

9/21/08: Chicago writer Anne K. Ream offers "Fault lines in feminism" (link), continuing the smear.

9/23/08: Jessica Yellin of CNN offers "Palin's town charged women for rape exams" (link). From the second link in this post:

[Despite Croft's other claims] Farther down in the story, CNN does reveal that there are no records and no proof that Palin ever even knew about this charging the victim policy. CNN also finally mentions that Wasilla wasn't the only town in Alaska that had this policy.

9/24/08: FactCheck raises questions about the smear (link), and says:

Eric Croft, a former Alaska state representative who sponsored the 2000 legislation, told CNN that "I find it hard to believe that for six months a small town, a police chief, would lead the fight against a statewide piece of legislation receiving unanimous support and the mayor not know about it." But Croft, a Democrat, says he does not recall discussing the issue with Palin at the time.

9/25/08: the New York Times' "Editorial Observer" Dorothy Samuels continues the smear in "Wasilla Watch: Sarah Palin and the Rape Kits" (link). Eric Croft makes an appearance there as well.

10/01/08: Even after all of the above, the Boston Globe editorial "Wasilla made rape victims pay" continues the lies (link).

[1] Same article here:
[3] That post got 395 Diggs:
[5] That post got 144 Diggs:

Blogwar undeclared against Naomi Wolf; psychiatrist called instead - 09/22/08

Back in October, I declared Blogwar against Naomi Wolf because she didn't approve a comment or two I left on the HuffPost.

Now, I am rescinding that call, and instead am considering calling in a psychiatrist for her:

Doesn't the left realize how embarrassing Max Blumenthal is? (Toby Keith, lynching) - 07/29/08

The latest example of Max Blumenthal's abject stupidity is called "Toby Keith's Pro-Lynching Publicity Tour Hits Colbert, CBS and More" ( and concerns the song "Beer For My Horses" which is apparently also a movie. Discussing all the ways it's wrong is left as an exercise (actually, don't bother), but:

The terrifying spectacle outside the courtroom prompted Jewish families to flee Atlanta in droves. Two years later, after the governor commuted Frank's sentence, a lynch mob spirited Frank from his prison cell, dragged him into the woods and lynched him -- from "a tall oak tree," as Toby Keith sang.

The quote leads to a presumed picture of the lynching showing a tree. Usually when someone puts something in quotes it involves someone else saying something, but the tree is not identified and could be anything. The only hits for "leo frank" "tall oak tree" are from Blumenthal's article; when the "tall" is removed it gets more hits and apparently the tree was in fact an oak. None of that has anything to do with the song since there's nothing in the song even implying a connection to Leo Frank. To Blumenthal, however, that doesn't matter.

Further, the song may be referring to unlawful lynchings, or it may be referring to hangings as ordered by a court; perhaps Max should see some Westerns. The song also references "the long arm of the law", so presumably Keith is promoting lawful executions rather than lynchings.

I'm as sorry to have to put anyone through that as I am at wasting my time discussing this.

Barack Obama misleads, smears Middle America - 04/11/08

Speaking in San Francisco at a fundraiser for the wealthy (and in Marin County no less; pictures of his tour here), Barack Obama smeared Pennsylvanians and others by saying:

Sleazy Jason Linkins smears Sean Hannity (Max Blumenthal) - 03/23/08

How sleazy is Jason Linkins of the Huffington Post? Sleazy enough to post this smear of Sean Hannity, linking him to white supremacist radio host Hal Turner. The latter apparently used to call in to Hannity's radio program; he claims he and Hannity were friends until Hannity's Program Director told him no more call-ins. Yet, if you do a find for the comment from PhilBoyceWABC on the HuffPost link you'll see that Turner's account of their friendship is more than a bit questionable.

Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require" - 02/29/08

A new "confidential" study called "Winning The Immigration Debate" has been released by two groups linked to the Democratic Party: the Center for American Progress (linked to Hillary Clinton and indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (member groups also have indirect links to the Mexican government) [1].

I haven't seen the study, but while some might be fooled, it's clear that it's just a new attempt to get the same old amnesty. And, their recommendations boil down to simply a rhetorical change, from "offering" a "path to citizenship" to "requiring" illegal aliens to become legalized. That more stern language will, the authors hope, immediately cause millions of U.S. citizens to be more amenable to amnesty. I'm sure they'll be able to fool many people that way, but in the end it's not going to work.

And, wrap your mind around this from the study:

This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

Who knew? Of course, this is yet another rhetorical device. Why else include the bit about what voters want? Shouldn't those pushing amnesty want what's best for the U.S. as well? Obviously they don't: their actions have repeatedly shown that they're not thinking of what's best for the U.S. but simply what's best for them and their companies, or their ethnic groups, or their political party.

[1] CCIR is headed by Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza. They've suggesting going easy on illegal aliens suspected of identity theft, they gave an award to a virulent racist, they fund extremists, and more. At least two members of the CCIR have indirect links to the Mexican government (ICIRR and MALDEF) and one has allegedly collaborated with that government (CHIRLA). And, one of their member groups (ILIR) has received funding from the Irish government.

In other words, no matter what you hear, it's the same old same old.A new "confidential" study called "Winning The Immigration Debate" has been released by two groups linked to the Democratic Party: the Center for American Progress (linked to Hillary Clinton and indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (member groups also have indirect links to the Mexican government) [1].

I haven't seen the study, but while some might be fooled, it's clear that it's just a new attempt to get the same old amnesty. And, their recommendations boil down to simply a rhetorical change, from "offering" a "path to citizenship" to "requiring" illegal aliens to become legalized. That more stern language will, the authors hope, immediately cause millions of U.S. citizens to be more amenable to amnesty. I'm sure they'll be able to fool many people that way, but in the end it's not going to work.

And, wrap your mind around this from the study:

This message places the focus where voters want it, on what's best for the United States, not what we can/should do for illegal immigrants.

Who knew? Of course, this is yet another rhetorical device. Why else include the bit about what voters want? Shouldn't those pushing amnesty want what's best for the U.S. as well? Obviously they don't: their actions have repeatedly shown that they're not thinking of what's best for the U.S. but simply what's best for them and their companies, or their ethnic groups, or their political party.

[1] CCIR is headed by Cecilia Munoz of the National Council of La Raza. They've suggesting going easy on illegal aliens suspected of identity theft, they gave an award to a virulent racist, they fund extremists, and more. At least two members of the CCIR have indirect links to the Mexican government (ICIRR and MALDEF) and one has allegedly collaborated with that government (CHIRLA). And, one of their member groups (ILIR) has received funding from the Irish government.

In other words, no matter what you hear, it's the same old same old.

Didn't Naomi Wolf like my Huffington Post comment? (Florida taser incident) - 09/18/07

Naomi Wolf - who you may remember from the Al "Alpha Male" Gore episode - offers "A Shocking Moment for Society: Tasering at University of Florida" [1]. I left a comment which appears to have been disapproved, thus once again proving false the HuffPost claim that they don't disapprove comments simply because they disagree with the poster [2].

Newest, lowest new low from Huffington Post? - 10/31/05

Baby Blumenthal - son of Submarine Sid and nee "Max" - goes after Alito here. Well, not directly. The Alito he goes after is Judge Alito's son, currently a student at Colgate University. He points out this bit from Phil Alito's biography:

..I was born 9 months and 2 weeks later by a midwife/wolf named Janie Jean, who would prove very influential during my formative years. Shortly after, I became interested in politics and got involved with Gary Condit (not like that). I served as a parking aide to Nancy Pelosi (I won't even start on her) but was fired when Barbara Boxer came onto me.

If you read the link, you'll see that it's college "humor", the same variety engaged in by most college students (save for humorless prats). See also "Sliming Alito - and badly, at that" (, which, while having nothing to do with the current case, is quite apt. Although at least they're going after the man himself with their smears.

Arianna Huffington and Baby Blumenthal - 10/01/05

Did you think the low-point of Huffington Post came when Randall Robinson uttered these memorable words?

It is reported that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive.

Well, you're only part right. While it's extremely difficult to find an actual low point of the sexy Greek goddess' site, a contender must be Max Blumenthal - the son of Sid Blumenthal - called by Marc Cooper a "featherweight tyro and designated puncher for enraged but impotent Democrats" here.

There's even a direct connection between Max and Randy. Shortly after the cannibalism charge, Sid Jr. offered "The Right Plays the Race-Card, Randall Robinson Unwittingly Indulges Them". Max stepped in as a bit of a White Savior, trying to offer Randy a lesson.

Obviously, almost everyone didn't believe Robinson's tasty charge; it didn't confirm our hidden suspicions about "those people." It simply provided yet another chance to laugh at Arianna and her crew.

Continuing his winning streak, Max now offers us "Bill Bennett, White Savior". He educates us about "closet racists" and "their codes", and diagnoses Bennett as being a "White Savior". Has the HuffPost no shame, have they no shame?

From young Max's bio:

Max Blumenthal is a Nation Institute Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow whose work regularly appears in the Nation. He has also written for The American Prospect,, and the Washington Monthly. He received the Online Journalism Award for best independent feature in 2003 from the Online Journalism Association and the University of Southern California's Annenberg School of Communications. He is a Research Fellow at Media Matters for America.

Huffington Post is scared - 09/15/05

It used to be that the Huffington Post approved almost every comment I left on the blog side of things.

Then, after they started their Katrina coverage, there were very few comments on the blog side, and what there were were complimentary. While some brave souls appeared to let most or all comments through, most of the HuffPo's pseudo-pundits appeared to be massively deleting comments. I say that because controversial posts had almost no comments, and that's certainly strange.