Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Emergency Broadcast! New World Order Ahead!

Heh: Obama Campaign Now Selling 'Made in the USA' Gear, Mocking Birthers

Townhall The Tipsheet Guy Benson

Guy Benson

Guy Benson


"We do not have time for this silliness," President Obama intoned last month, explaining his decision to take the extraordinary (and unnecessary) step of releasing his long-form birth certificate to the public. Indeed. The long-debunked "controversy" was a relentless distraction from the very real challenges facing our nation. And although the president clearly stated his hope that the country will transcend the "silliness" of birtherism, his professed wish hasn't stopped his re-election team from capitalizing on the phenomenon to raise money. Behold, the latest Obama 2012 flair, available for a modest donation:





Although this line of memorabilia represents an explicit violation of Obama's "let's put this issue behind us and move forward" standard, I can't bring myself to manufacture any outrageous outrage. It's actually rather funny. In fact, if I didn't have to fork over a few bucks to Obama's campaign, I'd totally score one of those mugs. If Team Obama were really cheeky, they'd enclose a free copy of Jerome Corsi's new book ("Where's the Birth Certificate?") with every shipment worth over, say, $100.

National mag publishes fabricated report attacking Corsi book

MEDIA MATTERS

Esquire claims best-seller being disavowed by publisher, 'pulled from shelves'


© 2011 WorldNetDaily


A major national publication that endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 today published a completely fabricated news story claiming Jerome Corsi's new best-selling "Where's the Birth Certificate," published by WND Books, has been disavowed by the publisher and taken out of stores nationwide, with refunds offered to purchasers.

Esquire, established in 1932, alleged on its website today under a "BREAKING" headline that Corsi's book was "pulled from shelves!"

Media are calling WND from around the world about the false report.

WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah confirmed he never spoke to Esquire.

"Never uttered these words or anything remotely resembling them to anyone," he said. "It is a complete fabrication."

Farah said, "The book is selling briskly. I am 100 percent behind it. This has all the earmarkings of a White House dirty trick – but, of course, only the Nixon administration was capable of dirty tricks like that, according to our watchdog media."

The Esquire "report":


The Esquire report, written by Mark Warren, the executive editor, called it a "stunning development" that "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President" was being recalled amid plans to "pulp the entire 200,000 first printing run of the book, as well as announcing an offer to refund the purchase price to anyone who has already bought either a hard copy or electronic download of the book."

Jerome Corsi's new book, "Where's the Birth Certificate?", is now available for immediate shipping, autographed by the author, only from the WND Superstore

Farah said the Esquire attack is "a prima facie example of libel and attempt at restraint of trade."

"This is an astonishingly reckless report by a company that has demonstrated its total disregard for the truth," said Farah. "I don't know who Esquire's anonymous sources are, but I can only guess that their address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."

Farah surmised Esquire will claim the article is parody, but he points out that news organizations around the world were contacting him within minutes of its posting on the Internet, with some in doubt as to the veracity of the report.

The article includes fictional quotes from Farah and Corsi – neither of whom spoke to Esquire or were asked for comment.

"We are exploring our legal options right now," said Farah. "There is no question of damages from this irresponsible attack. This book was released yesterday. Our author is in day two of a media tour. This report is playing havoc with a bestselling book – and there is little question that is the intent."

WND Managing Editor David Kupelian added, "I really didn't think the establishment media could possibly sink any lower than it already has in recent years. This is a new low – a malicious fabrication from top to bottom, designed solely to defame a best-selling book, its author and publisher."

Later, after the "news report" had circulated widely and generated widespread misinformation, the magazine added an "Update" in the form of a note at the bottom of the story, explaining it had "committed satire."

Assuming the legitimacy of Obama's recently released birth document, and ignoring the other legal issues concerning the president's constitutional eligibility for office that are explored in the book, the note claimed the "core premise and reason to exist" for the book was "gutted by the news cycle."

"Are its author and publisher chastened? Well. No. They double down, and accuse the president of the United States of perpetrating a fraud on the world by having released a forged birth certificate. … This is despicable, and deserves only ridicule. That's why we committed satire," the note said.

Esquire did not respond immediately to a WND email and telephone call requesting comment.

On April 27, with great fanfare, Obama finally released his "birth certificate" after years of stonewalling, defending against dozens of lawsuits brought by citizens wanting to see it, claiming he had already released it and ridiculing anybody who said he had not released it.

Yet a stunning Gallup Poll taken more than a week later (May 5-8) shows more than half of all Americans remain unconvinced Obama was born in the U.S.

Perhaps that's because, while the establishment press continues to ridicule "birthers" as conspiracy nuts, the White House's April 27 document release has generated vexing new questions and outright contradictions regarding the president's "birth certificate."

For instance, two weeks before Obama finally released his "long-form birth certificate," Hawaii's former Health Department chief Chiyome Fukino – the one official who claimed to have examined Obama's original birth document under lock and key in Hawaii – was interviewed by NBC News' national investigative correspondent Michael Isikoff, who reported that Fukino told him she had seen the original birth certificate and that it was "half typed and half handwritten."

However, the document released by the White House was entirely typed. Only the signatures and two dates at the very bottom were "handwritten." What Fukino described is apparently a different document from what Obama released to the public.

Other problems surrounding the president's newly released "birth certificate" include:

Prior to the release of "Where's the Birth Certificate," conscientious Americans have had basically two choices:

  1. Believe that their president, Barack Obama – after years of ignoring the millions of citizens who, according to repeated polls, doubt his official nativity story and just want the truth regarding his birth, his past and his loyalties – has simply been playing games with the public and hiring lawyers to block release of his birth certificate, only to do it now, after years of needless stonewalling.

  2. Believe there may have been a real reason Obama adamantly refused to release his birth certificate all these years – meaning he had something real to hide and still does. And that perhaps the latest birth certificate, a copy of a copy of a document, posted on the Internet like the last one, is fraudulent.

Since neither choice is very palatable to most Americans, the release of Jerome Corsi's "Where's the Birth Certificate" will present a third choice: the sure understanding that, based on the U.S. Constitution and the framers' original intent, Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States.

Get your copy of Jerome Corsi's long-awaited, already-No. 1 blockbuster, "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President."


Read more: National mag publishes fabricated report attacking Corsi book http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=300301#ixzz1MjKQyqTZ

Uttering 'Jesus' in school 'not protected free speech'

LAW OF THE LAND

'Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils since they mentioned God'


By Bob Unruh

© 2011 WorldNetDaily



Kelly Shackelford

A hearing is scheduled Monday before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that could determine if students in elementary schools have the protections of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The case arose in the Plano Independent School District in Texas where Thomas Elementary School Principal Lynn Swanson and Rasor Elementary School Principal Jackie Bomchill were sued for restricting student speech when it referenced "God" or "Jesus."

According to the Liberty Institute, in the first incident, officials banning 8-year-old Jonathan Morgan from handing out candy canes with Jesus' name on them to classmates at a school party.

"Back Fired," by William J. Federer, shows how the faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!

"Then they confiscated a little girl's pencils after school because they mentioned 'God,'" the Institute reported.

But that's not all, the group said.

"They even banned an entire classroom from writing 'Merry Christmas' on cards to our troops serving in Iraq."

The dispute went to district court then to a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit where school officials' efforts to have the complaint rejected because of their "immunity" failed.

Now the appeals court has agreed to an en banc hearing in which 17 judges will listen to arguments and decide the dispute.

The school officials are arguing "that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students," explains the appeal brief submitted by Liberty Institute.

They are claiming that the case is a dispute of "first impression," – that is, the first time the question has been raised. Swanson and Bomchill are urging "that the First Amendment does not apply to elementary school students."

"According to school officials, 'neither the Supreme Court nor this Court has ever extended First Amendment 'freedom of speech' protection to the distribution of non-curricular materials in public elementary schools,'" the brief explains.

Liberty Institute asserts that "the First Amendment is not implicated by restrictions on student-to-student distribution of non-curricular materials by elementary school students to their classmates."

But Kelly Shackelford, the president and CEO of Liberty Institute, told WND the fundamental question in the disagreement is whether the appeals court will "strip away the First Amendment rights of kids and their parents in the schools."

"This is really serious, very dangerous," he said, noting it would be the highest level for such a decision in the nation, short only a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This is chilling. What this means if they have no First Amendment rights is that they have no right to have a viewpoint different from the government," he said.

"If their parents wanted to protect them from punishment because they have a different view … they have no right to even protect them," he said.

Shackleford said the school officials' argument essentially is: "Let's say we did engage in religious discrimination. We can do it."

"If they win this case, they could silence 41 million American school kids and their parents," the Institute explained.

Shackelford sees the possibility of a slippery slope: If an elementary school student has no First Amendment rights, what about a middle school or junior high student. Then what about a high school student. And what about adults, too?

He said a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Association for Retarded Citizens noted that such deprivation of rights theoretically could be applied to an adult whose mental capacity would be adjudged to be that of a student-age child.

"They saw the implications immediately even for adults," he said.

"This would be a massive transfer of power from citizens and students and their parents to the government. The government would decide whether students have those rights."

But he said the Constitution lacks any statement "that those rights don't come into existence until the government approves."

"All citizens have those protections," he said.

A message left by WND with the school district seeking comment did not generate a response.

But a lawyer for the school district, Charles Crawford, later contacted WND and said the parents and students apparently decided to "stretch the truth" of their complaints about a crackdown on references to "God" and "Jesus."

He said the district "has not taken the position that children do not have rights," but he also said those "rights" are not "clearly established." He said the principals should be protected by qualified immunity.

Shackelford said there is reason for alarm because the 5th Circuit's panel had decided in favor of the students, and the full panel of the court now is being convened, a rare occurrence in itself.

He said generally such en banc hearings are held only when there is major disagreement with the outcome from the panel's ruling.

But he said Paul Clement and Ken Starr, both former solicitors general for the United States government, are arguing on the side of the students on Monday.

"If you have kids, grandkids, or if you don't, do you want future kids to be told they have no right to respectfully and in a nondisruptive manner express their opinions, unless their views agree with the government?" he asked.

"What have we just created for our future citizenry?"

The organization has set up a special FirstAmendmentFreedoms.LibertyInstitute.org website to document the case and its arguments.

He said he is pleading with Christian organizations and groups to be in prayer this weekend over the arguments and the outcome.

According to the pleading, "Whatever confusion may exist about student speech and the Religion Clauses, the confusion does not extend to the fundamental principle that school officials may not discriminate against student speech solely because it expresses a religious viewpoint."

It explains school officials, in this case Bomchill, while allowing other students to hand out essentially whatever they chose, banned a student, Stephanie, from handing to her friends two pencils – one that said "moon" and another that said, "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so."

"Stephanie's mother was unable to secure a meeting with Bomchill before the party. She thus arrived early on the day of the party and went to Bomchill's office with the tray of brownies, each individual wrapped with two pencils. … The head of security handed Stephanie's mother a letter that erroneously alleged that she had distributed material to students on school property. The letter warned that 'police' involvement would follow if she failed to submit material for pre-clearance or leave school grounds when asked," said the brief.

"Bomchill then repeated the accusations and stated that Stephanie would be in 'trouble' if any more 'religious' material were distributed to her friends and classmates. … After Stephanie's mother left, two police cars pulled her over. …"

"Indeed, Swanson and Bomchill seemingly permitted schoolchildren to express their views without meaningful restriction from any conceivable standpoint, except the standpoint of religious faith," said the brief.

Continued the brief, "No case has ever suggested that school officials may selectively target student speech in elementary schools solely because it expresses a religious and no secular viewpoint."



Read more: Uttering 'Jesus' in school 'not protected free speech' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=300205#ixzz1MjB8dHSJ