The Epitome Of Bad Journalism

By TIM KILLEEN

Yesterday, The Post & Email, "an electronic newspaper," ran a story once again calling into question the place of Pres. Obama's birth. While stories like this have circulated ad nauseum during and after the 2008 election, The Post & Email presents new "evidence" of Pres. Obama's African birth. What is that evidence, you ask?

An online newspaper based in Tanzania is reporting that “Barack Abdallah Husein Obama,” the “first black US president,” was born outside of the United States.

Written in broken English, the article notes that the President of the United States has historically been required to be born on U.S. soil but that “This might have been the result of racism or belief that a person other than ‘original’ US citizen was capable of effectively leading the powerful nation and help it to maintain its values.”

The writers go on to say that “We witnessed last year a senator with his origins from east Africa, Barack Abdallah Husein Obama, becoming the first black US president. He won the race on Democrat ticket and was sworn on January 20, 2009 as US president.”

Of course, The Post & Email, as a legitimate news organization, followed up on with the "online newspaper based in Tanzania" on its sources for the claims. In response, the Editor of The Post & Email got this response:

Dear Editor,
What our writers in the story you refer to meant to highlight is Barack Obama’s ancestry. There is no doubt that the President’s father, Barack Obama Sr, was a Kenyan, who went to study in the United States and met his mother at university. Surely, the people in the US, the most sophisticated country on earth, have all the research capability to put these rubbish claims to rest. President Obama was born in Hawaii. Isn’t that part of the US? To us in Africa, the increasing lies about Mr Obama’s birthplace are proof of the racism that is so ingrained in American society. Why don’t you send a team to Kenya to scour the records in the birth registry in Nairobi and Kisumu to see if there is any shred of evidence that Barack Obama Jr was born in Kenya? You have made great scientific breakthroughs, including landing a man on the moon, confirming that President Obama was, indeed, born in the US shouldn’t be that difficult.

However, despite the fact that The Citizen (the Tanzanian "online newspaper") wrote that it, in no way, claimed that Pres. Obama was born in Africa, readers at the less-than-logical freerepublic.com jumped all over the story, noting:

Well if that’s not proof enough for you I just don’t know what is.

If he’s constitutionally ineligible, then any law he signed is invalid, including Healthcare and the stimulu packages.

“Barack Abdallah Husein Obama” All that is left is to tack “Muhammad” on to it. That would just be the cherry on the cake of my day.

Given the choice between the "Mainstream Media" and "newspapers" like The Post & Email, I think I might stick with the former.

A Follow-Up From The Lunatic Fringe

Early today, I noted the buzz from freerepublic.com about the Gen. McChrystal story. Now that Pres. Obama has named Gen. Petraus as the new commander of the Afghan war, here is a taste of what's being said about the statement that the President welcomes debate but won't tolerate division:

I don’t tolerate division either! That Rat Bastard has divided our country in a way it hasn’t been in 40 years! Screw him and all his Commie ilk!!!!!

Spoken just like Chavez. Anyone ever notice how Obama loves to use the tyrant phrase: “I won’t tolerate...” ???

You only talked with the liberal leftist general once obama... you are a lying sack of muslim monkey sh!t!

Certainly, this kind of rhetoric is not typical of those on the political right who actually think about the issues, but after analyzing Robert A. Hall's words last week, I think it's important for people to know that these kinds of things are being offered up and validated by the lunatic fringe of the conservative movement.

The Hateful Right Throws A Curveball

Yesterday, a friend asked me whether or not I'd be writing about the Gen. McChrystal Rolling Stone interview. I told him I'd wait to see how the story shook out- that is, if it just happened and was talked about all day by the pundits there would be no reason to add my two cents, however, if the far right-wingers blasted Obama for calling McChrystal to task and backed the general over his boss (which I figured would happen), then that hypocrisy would be worth discussing.

Well, I stand corrected in my assumption. Though I came across a few people saying Obama shouldn't fire McChrystal and that he was overbearing and unrealistic about his generals, I came across a much different line of discussion than I'd expected.

Whenever I want to know how the craziest of the far-right is feeling on an issue, I check out freerepublic.com- a bastion of hateful people who prefer not to hear any opposing views and simply reaffirm each other's off-the-wall beliefs.

A small point I'd noticed when I first read about the McChrystal interview yesterday morning was that, despite having voted for Obama, the general was upset with the way the war in Afghanistan was being run. This, apparently, was an absolute shock to the system of "freepers" who noted the following:

Hardly any question remaining that the military is infested with PC Islamofascist enablers. Fort Worth removed all doubt. When Obama came to power and they were arguing over sending more troops to fight the war, I felt a pit in my stomach. I read about Viet Nam and what leftists do to our soldiers when they love the enemy more than the US. We should bring the troops home before the leftists in the military and Obama and his homies sacrifice them on the altar of political correctness.

And this:

Hell with you McChrystal, you voted for this idiot and his marxist minions. I hope you are miserable, same way the American people and the troops probably are. You deserve what you get.

And, finally (amongst others):

He [McChrystal] can make it right by putting Hussein, Biden, Pelosi, and the Congressional Progressive caucus on a plane to Cuba, instituting a provisional military government for 6 months, all Constitutional amendments except the Bill of Rights rescinded, then holding new elections, no incumbents need apply and only tax payers and veterans should bother showing up to vote, because no one else will be allowed.

Yea, someone actually wrote all of these things (and did so seriously). This was an interesting development that I didn't see coming, as I'd figured that nothing could ever come between the far-right and their love for all things military. Apparently, the one thing that can is their hatred for Barack Obama. So know this, current, future and former members of the military, while you may think that you can rely upon the unconditional support of those on the farthest right of the political spectrum, if you ever think about voting for (or now supporting) the President of the United States, you'll be cast off like yesterday's George B. McClellan.

Ridiculous Video of the Day: Jon Stewart Hits His Mark

Sometimes Ridiculous Video of the Day is ridiculous because it's just something dumb, sometimes it's ridiculous because Dale Peterson is in it, and sometimes it's ridiculous because it's just spot on. Jon Stewart has his moments of silly juvenile humor and then he has his moments of perfectly pointing out social issues through comedy. This is one of the latter.

Can't Have It Both Ways

With the gulf oil disaster now halted, at least for the moment, one wonders what the hell took so long (to be fair we've all been wondering that for a good month now). Almost everyone has been blaming BP (as they should), few have mentioned much about TransOcean and a good number of folks on the left and (especially) the right have been blaming the Obama Administration.

Now, to be fair, I also blame all three of these parties- the first two for causing the spill through what looks like negligence and a greedy oversight of obvious safety issues; and the administration for such a poor effort at cleaning it up. The administration claimed that BP was needed for the cleanup because it had the know-how and the equipment to deal with such an undertaking, which is probably true. But know-how and equipment don't necessarily mean you have to be in charge, just that you can execute the plan you're told to execute. E.J. Dionne, Jr. points out at The New Republic the poor choice of putting free enterprise in charge of disaster cleanup.

In Dionne's piece, a good point is made about the conservative critique of the government's role in this. For the past couple of weeks, conservative commentators like Sean Hannity have been complaining and complaining about the government's slow response to pleas from the likes of small-government enthusiasts like Bobby Jindal. What right do they have to do that, though? If the government would have swooped in on day one, told BP "this is how it's gonna be," mounted some large effort and started dealing with the cleanup, wouldn't these same people be complaining that government needs to get out of the way and let free enterprise do it- that entrepreneurs could do it better?

These are the same "commentators" who are still complaining about TARP and the stimulus package, while at the same time complaining about unemployment being high- as if by allowing our biggest corporations to close and not putting money into the economy unemployment wouldn't be even higher than it is today. You can complain about government being too big and about deficit spending all you like. You can say these things are ruining America. I may not agree with you, but I understand your concern. But you can't have it both ways. Either government should get out of the way and let free enterprise handle a situation or they shouldn't. Make up your minds.

Indefinite Sentences? Slippery Slope?

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Comstock. In a 7-2 decision (Scalia and Thomas dissenting), the Court held that Congress has the power, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, to write legislation that would allow the federal government to detain "sexually dangerous" persons indefinitely, even after they had served out their sentence. A Salon piece discussed the likelihood that this decision be used as a precedent for the Obama administration to continue its practice of holding Guantanamo detainees indefinitely.


First, whether the administration leans on this new decision or on previous "war powers" decisions to continue its Guantanamo plans, the practice of indefinite detention seems like just the thing we were railing against during the Bush administration and exactly the kind of "change" sought during the 2008 election. Rachel Maddow lays out that contradiction quite well. Certainly, there are instances where, for one reason or another, credible evidence obtained by the government against a suspected terrorist would be inadmissible in a federal court; there are also cases where we have probably turned innocent detainees against the U.S. and fear retaliation after their release. To either of these situations, it seems there are other solutions short of holding these people forever, which stands against our sense of Rule of Law and the basic human right of habeas corpus.

However, more importantly than that is how this case may be used in contexts other than Guantanamo detainees and sex offenders. Ten years down the line, what will the administration in power feel it needs to keep the public safe from? What other class of persons will it feel obliged to continue to hold? I admit that, having not read the full opinion, there may be a narrow reading of the class Congress may legislate to keep confined. However, Justice Breyer's opinion asked that if the government is already allowed to hold a prisoner in quarantine because he has some communicable disease, "how could it not be similarly 'necessary and proper' to confine an individual whose mental illness threatens others to the same degree?"

I understand his point, broad as it may be, and can't say I fully disagree. However, I also understand Justice Thomas' point that "the Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it." My worry is whether this case will become a crutch leaned on by future administrations to expand power to hold whomever it may be convenient at the time to hold. With few exceptions (if any), a man who has paid his debt to society and served the time to which he was sentenced deserves the certainty that his debt is paid in full.

No Excuse For This

Huffington Post reported earlier today:

In a high school geometry class, parallel lines and angles intersected with talk of presidential assassination Monday, when an Alabama teacher used an unfortunate hypothetical as a classroom example.

"He was talking about angles and said, 'If you're in this building, you would need to take this angle to shoot the president,'" said Joseph Brown, a senior in the Corner High School geometry class, according to the Birmingham News.

The Secret Service went to the Jefferson County high school to investigate the matter after someone informed them about the statement. (The unnamed teacher was neither arrested nor charged with a crime).

"We did not find a credible threat," Roy Sex­ton, special agent in charge of Birmingham's Secret Service office, told the News. "As far as the Secret Service is concerned, we looked into it, we talked to the gentleman and we have closed our investigation."

According to district Superintendent Phil Hammonds, the teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave and may face eventual termination.

"As a district, we are embarrassed by his actions and what he said," Hammonds told the News. "There is nothing that can be said to rationalize what was said. We take this very seriously. There is no place in our society for a person to make these comments."

Obviously, no one is to blame but the teacher, as the district seems to be as baffled as everyone else, but this is just another example of a frightening new trend of mixing threats of violence with political viewpoints.