Joseph Farah, Information Criminal
In their continuing campaign to undermine American freedom and our way of life, information criminals at World Net Daily have published a remarkably misleading and false article titled:
We know that State Department of Health spokesperson, Janice Okubo said quite plainly: “Such vital statistics, however, were not sent to the newspapers by the general public but by the Health Department, which received the information directly from hospitals, Okubo said.”
The WND article is rather like a magicians misdirection. Saying something true and then immediately restating or reinterpreting it falsely or pulling things out of context. Anyone who has any sense knows that Barack Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii. The State Department of Health said so. What WND is trying to do is to stir the pot, create discontent, raise anxiety, and trick its readers into believing something that is not true. World Net Daily is raping the minds of its readers.
WorldNetDaily has a tag line that says: “A free press for a free people”. Decent people know that is the truth that makes us free. By that reason, WorldNetDaily, purveyor of lies and the sewer of journalism, is actually trying to take away American liberty and make a free people into slaves.
Take heed:
(Rev 21:8 NRSV) But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur …
I know the allegation that parents could “report” a birth up to a certain time was one of the specific false statements, that many birthers quote as their argument. I recall seeing statements and statutes that debunked that one, but I don’t recall where (and maybe someone else has that quickly available).
Aside from that.. the tactic is very clear. The announcements are on microfilm (not able to be altered); they are what are known in genealogical terms as an ORIGINAL document (one made AT THE TIME OF THE EVENT), AND..the State of Hawaii has blown a hole in the “grandma placed it” excuse, by saying..”NO. The info came directly from the health dept records”. Thus.. the only hole left is to again, try to attack by saying that the parents COULD have had him elsewhere, and fudged by using that alleged Hawaii back-door process, and registering a birth that actually happened somewhere else. And (once again)..”but we found neighbors and they don’t recall a black/ mixed baby living there”. Yeah, so I don’t remember who lived next to me, 47 yrs ago, either. Sure is not proof of anything, except being human and having no memory of something. Not proof it did not happen.
Much comes down to calling Hawaii’s authorities and their statements.. to be lies. Or just leaving them out, to keep the pot stirred up.
Or.. more appropriate, keep the pot FILLED, AS IN soliciting money for a hoax. Good ol’ paypal button, don’tcha know?
Does freedom of the press EXTEND to willfully collecting money, when it is clearly evident that the reason for the funds is a scam?
WorldNetDaily is funded by a group of
Satanistsconservative millionaire investors.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56353
I’m less sanguine about that kind of yellow journalism than I am about the willful abuse perpetrated by professional attorneys.
After all when WEEKLY WORLD NEWS trumpets that Bill Clinton met with aliens or Dick Cheney is a robot (yes, I know, tempting, eh?) 90% of us know this is rubbish.
Same here.
I’d point out that the article you linked to was posted on July 22, 2009. It’s fake news, but it’s old fake news.
You can find a chronological listing of WND’s fanning the flames of the birth certificate myth here – most recent stories at the top of the page:
http://www.wnd.com/eligibility
You’ll have to scroll down a ways to find the headline of the article you are writing about . Since that time they have reported dozens of other stories, some more or less ridiculous than others.
Oops, I misread. WND always shows the current date on the top of the page, and this is what I saw.
The Birther attitude towards the newspaper announcements is a good illustration of how the conspiracist mind responds to new, contrary information.
At first, the Birthers said the announcements couldn’t be trusted because any individual person could have submitted the entries. That maybe the Dunhams had sent in Barack’s.
Then it was clarified that the information in those announcements came from the vital records office, not from individuals.
And the Birther reaction? That the announcements shouldn’t be trusted because they came from the vital records office, and Obama’s parents or grandparents must have already lied to the vital records office.
Even this doesn’t touch on the unbelievably massive conspiracy theory promoted by Polarik and others, where they suggested that the microfiche had been forged and replaced.
Orly spams 20,000 media ‘outlets’….Is pissed that they aren’t more appreciative of her efforts….
😀
————————
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/
I will be exposing to you all of the reporters and media executives, who don’t want to know the truth about Obama’s illegitimacy for presidency and don’t want to report the truth to their readers, therefor actively defrauding their readers.
Posted on | October 26, 2009 | No Comments
Re: Obama illegitimacy for presidency trial scheduled
Monday, October 26, 2009 7:04 AM
From:
“Sonja Sherritze”
Add sender to Contacts
To:
newsletter@orlytaitzesq.com
Please remove me from your mailing list.
Sonja Sherritze
Editor, P&T
MediMedia USA, Inc.
780 Township Line Road
Yardley, PA 19067
Hmm, so birth announcements from 1961 are not solid evidence, but a doctored AP article is? Okaaaay….
lol
It’s all I can say.
Dear Doc,
Like Orly, Farah has no professional reputation to lose. He makes a mockery of journalism, seeking to turn every public conversation into a food fight whose outcome depends on special-interest funding.
This yellow journalistic sleaze hose eats his own waste.
Benji Franklin
From ConWebWatch regarding Orly and WND…
WND Orly Taitz Whitewash Watch
Topic: WorldNetDaily
WorldNetDaily’s Orly Taitz protection racket continues with an unbylined Oct. 23 article detailing Taitz’s legal response to a court procedure in which a judge fined her $20,000 for her behavior.
The article kicks off by wildly and overbroadly stating that Taitz was fined “for her work on the case.” It later quotes four paragraphs from federal Judge Clay Land’s order fining Taitz — but only a section of sarcastic remarks making the point that Taitz has not demonstrated that her clients have standing to sue Obama or the federal government over the issue of eligibility. Nowhere does it mention the specific acts Taitz committed that led to the sanction — even though WND had done so in a previous article — nor does the article link to land’s order itself (only to the website of the courthouse where Land works). As summarized by Land in his ruling:
”When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the Judicial Code of Conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice.”
The article states that Taitz’s client in this case, Connie Rhodes, “later decided not to appeal Land’s adverse rulings in her case, a decision Taitz attributed to ‘duress’ from her commanders.” But WND did not report — and has not reported — that Rhodes dropped Taitz as her attorney after Taitz filed an appeal of the judge’s ruling dismissing her complaint without obtaining Rhodes’ permisson to do so.
The article goes on to repeat a previous statement that “Taitz also has another case pending in California. She represents several dozen defendants, and attorney Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation represents two others. WND’s whitewash continues there as well: there’s no mention of the fact that, as we’ve previously detailed, the defendants now with Kreep were originally represented by Taitz until they determined that she was “in over her head,” and that Taitz for a while refused to sign papers transferring their reprsentation from her to Kreep — another breach of legal ethics.
With this article, WND is continuing to slavishly adhere to Taitz’s demand to criticize Obama and not her.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
WND is in bed with Orly and the other birthers. As a matter of fact they are extremly anti-Obama, so they will do anything to discredit the President. So nothing they do surprises me.
And who are these “professional attorneys” of whom you speak? I haven’t seen a single one of these associated with the birfers.
“But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur …”
Like Hagee.
I don’t know if this is true, but I read on the internet that barnyard animals become skittish when Farah is nearby.
“Bill Clinton met with aliens or Dick Cheney is a robot”
Wait – they’re not??
Yeah, WND takes the bass-ackwards view on responsible journalism. They put the sensationalism ahead of the story in order to get an eyeball, and then when you read the story you realize that you’ve gotten the same information as everywhere else, just spun a little differently, and then added on with small details from previous articles on that subject.
That was funny…I think if WND is in “bed” with Orly it may be a literal thing…Meaning Farah and Orly…What a combo…
WND wouldn’t know responsible journalism if it jumped up and bit them on the ass…
I must admit that I mislead a bit on my own headlines sometimes because I want to introduce that National Inquirer flavor to indicate the silliness of the subject in general. But when I write the article, I take great care not to mislead anyone, not one bit. WND leaves these innuendos hanging around, and I know from sad experience that after reading a WorldNetDaily article, people get the wrong conclusion.