Breitbart: There’s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day they’ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost it’s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didn’t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney General’s office, and they’ve now realized let’s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, that’s why we’ve been forced to offer this latest tape.

Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?

Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Video at the link….

This is in response to the latest video, this time from the LA office….the same one that the LA Times proclaimed would be vindicated.

Moore scored big with Fahrenheit 9/11, it had a 120 million domestic gross. Since then his films have been falling faster than a fat man on ice. Sicko made a fairly respectable 24.5 million. Then Moore made an ego trip movie, Captain Mike Across America; vanity movies are not well received by the public and movie patrons seemed to be on to the greed and poor dollar value of Moore’s Socialist Propaganda. He had to give the movie away to get exposure and save face.

It’s become painfully obvious that Leftist propaganda movies are boring, even for die hard Marxists. It has been estimated that approximately two million people viewed Moore’s latest propaganda effort, that represents less than 3% of the Leftists who voted for the Hope and Change mantra, indicating that Obama voters are losing interest in the drab austere life of universal poverty that Obamamania promises.

For the fashion conscious politicos Marxism, Moore, and Obama are fast becoming so yesterday, the new mantra seems to be No Moore Obama!

While the global economy is recovering from the worst recession since World War II, the United States flounders in the same doldrums of New Dealism that kept America locked in The Great Depression while the rest of the world enjoyed growing prosperity.

Crude is $79.92, Gold is $1,147.72, Platinum is $1,43.10; India has just contracted to buy two metric tons of Gold, China is sucking in most of copper, aluminum, and iron ore on the market; the United States languishes in the doldrums of skim milk Marxism, while other nations are forging into un-before known prosperity, we have economic pundits forecasting hyper inflation; and the AP worries whether Sarah Palin has errors in her new book Going Rogue, rather than examining the integrity and writing skills of the Great Ditherer.

The Great Ditherer has come by his nick name honestly, in the 89-90 school year he was elected by the Law students to be the President of he Harvard Law Review. A position that was to become symbolic, for other than gushing reviews from the New York Times over his “irresistible” writing skills, he contributed nothing and wrote absolutely nothing, other than one ineffectual unsigned case note, and since that brilliant contribution he has not written a legal article in nearly 20 years.

In reality, Obama was probably elected to the position, for much the same reason that he was elected to the Presidency of the United States, to appease White Liberal ambivalent guilt feelings over their wealth and prestige. Thus Obama became their Token Negro in the front office to lessen elite guilt, for how can you be a Liberal without demonstrating your uncompromising fairness without having Negro window dressing. Thus an irresistible writer was elected to a prestigious position and was expected to do… nothing. Thus the role of Great Ditherer was becoming more defined for a talent that thrived on being noted as a mediocrity and reinforced by the Ivy League Liberal Elite of Harvard. A precedent was set that the young Obama could finally grasp, the concept of dithering.

On November 28, 1990, Obama was issued a six figure contract by Poseidon Press, an imprint of Simon and Shuster for a memoir titled In Black and White. A memoir is the easiest of all books to write, there are no references, nor footnotes, the truth can be stretched as long as the writing is at least plausible. The manuscript was to be completed by June 15, 1992, thus Obama had 18 months to complete the manuscript and was advanced $75,000 of a $150,000 contract. A contract that is virtually unheard of unless you are Liberal window dressing. For some reason, the University of Chicago Law School loaned Obama an office to write his manuscript.

On October 20, 1992, after almost two years of earnest dithering, Poseidon terminated the contract for noncompliance.

Obama pleaded with Simon and Shuster that he and Michelle were in debt with student loans and that he had already spent the advance: in effect, he expected a bailout. Again, fate and liberal guilt allowed Obama to skate.

Soon after this debacle, Obama secured a $40,000 advance from Times Books to write the same book. In a fabricated story by the New York Times, Barack and Michelle went to Bali on a romantic interlude for four months so that he could unlock and write the book. The truth has now emerged that Barack went to Bali by himself for one to three months and at the very least spent his time dithering once again, for the sum total of his writing excursion was…. nothing. Thus the behavioral pattern of the Great Ditherer was becoming even more formalized and entrenched.

Of course the discrepancies in the Legend of the Anointed One aren’t as important as the new book of a former Vice Presidential candidate.

In 1993, Michelle realized that the Great Ditherer had once again lived up to his nick name and after having read, To Teach by William Ayers, and approving of the novel like journalistic style she approached their “friend and Hyde Park neighbor, Bill Ayers” about writing the Dreams book.

Christopher Anderson in his new coffee table book that portrays life with the Obamas, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage succinctly describes how the book Dreams of My Father was written in this quote from Michelle, “[The Obama Family] oral histories, along with his partial manuscript and a trunk load of notes were given to Bill Ayers.”

Thus an admitted and unrepentant terrorist, who told an undercover FBI agent that 20 to 25 million Americans would have to be exterminated in camps to establish a Marxist Utopia here in the United States is the one who actually writes the “irresistible” prose for the President.

While the AP hounds from hell are lunging past one another to shred the slightest variance from fact in Sarah’s ghost written autobiography, the most obvious and foul story of malfeasance is ignored. Thus the MSM contributes to its own demise of intellectual and journalistic integrity.

Jack Cashill, a professor at Purdue and a blogger at American Thinker has written convincing arguments concerning the similarities of Dreams and Ayers’ previous writing, similarities that are like fingerprints for seasoned writers. I follow Dr Cashill’s opinions on this matter and I have drawn most of my notes from his work.

Two-thirds of Americans disagree with the Obama administration’s decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court rather than a military court, according to a new national poll.

But six in 10 people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday say that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks should be tried in the United States, as the administration plans to do, rather than at a U.S. facility in another country.

The poll indicates that 64 percent believe Mohammed should be tried in military court, with 34 percent suggesting that he face trial in civilian court. Six in 10 people questioned say Mohammed should be tried stateside, with 37 percent calling for the trial to take place at a U.S. facility in another country.

“The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in front of a civilian court is universally unpopular – even a majority of Democrats and liberals say that he should be tried by military authorities,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Despite that, most Americans say that he will get a fair trial in the U.S.”

Not sure what Holland’s point is here. Of course he would get a fair trial, but the majority of respondents, in a CNN poll for gods sake, understand that giving this scumbag a civilian trial is ludicrous:

Trying KSM in civilian court will be an intelligence bonanza for al Qaeda and the hostile nations that will view the U.S. intelligence methods and sources that such a trial will reveal. The proceedings will tie up judges for years on issues best left to the president and Congress.

Whether a jury ultimately convicts KSM and his fellows, or sentences them to death, is beside the point. The treatment of the 9/11 attacks as a criminal matter rather than as an act of war will cripple American efforts to fight terrorism. It is in effect a declaration that this nation is no longer at war.

~~~

Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information, and his relationships to fellow al Qaeda operatives. The information will enable al Qaeda to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will enable it to detect our means of intelligence-gathering, and to push forward into areas we know nothing about.

This is not hypothetical, as former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has explained. During the 1993 World Trade Center bombing trial of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (aka the “blind Sheikh”), standard criminal trial rules required the government to turn over to the defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators.

In essence, this list was a sketch of American intelligence on al Qaeda. According to Mr. McCarthy, who tried the case, it was delivered to bin Laden in Sudan on a silver platter within days of its production as a court exhibit.

Bin Laden, who was on the list, could immediately see who was compromised. He also could start figuring out how American intelligence had learned its information and anticipate what our future moves were likely to be.

It’s crazy. Simply crazy.

Even more harmful to our national security will be the effect a civilian trial of KSM will have on the future conduct of intelligence officers and military personnel. Will they have to read al Qaeda terrorists their Miranda rights? Will they have to secure the “crime scene” under battlefield conditions? Will they have to take statements from nearby “witnesses”? Will they have to gather evidence and secure its chain of custody for transport all the way back to New York? All of this while intelligence officers and soldiers operate in a war zone, trying to stay alive, and working to complete their mission and get out without casualties.

And the other poll is about ObamaCare. Notice how the AP tries to hide some inconvenient numbers with a article entitled “AP POLL: Tax the rich to pay for health bill”

…what the Associated Press does not even mention in their story is probably the most relevant part:

In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose the health care reform plans being discussed in Congress? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE Is that strongly support/oppose or somewhat support/oppose?

To no surprise that’s opposed by 43-41%. Eleven percent neither support or oppose and 4% “don’t know.”

Also conveniently left out of their story is the response to whether people should be penalized if they do not buy the government-run health care: Sixty-four percent oppose. Why do you suppose that was left out?

Also left out was of the respondents, 37% are unemployed or retired. No wonder they want someone to pick up the tab.

Forty-two percent think they economy will get worse if this scam is shoved down our throats, while 28% think it will improve. Again, this is left out of the story.

Also, over the past five years, 86% of respondents said the care they received from physician or hospital was excellent or good, only 2% said it was poor. This was left out of the AP story. So why do we have to blow up the entire system?

That’s a couple different polls on the two hot button issues of the day which Obama and company should take heed….but won’t. Now granted, the opinions of a thousand people cannot tell us accurately the sentiments of the entire country but when two liberal rags take a poll and the numbers go against the liberal position….the liberals should take notice.

Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Authorities have been examining whether Fort Hood massacre suspect Nidal Malik Hasan wired money to Pakistan in recent months, an action that one senior lawmaker said would raise serious questions about Hasan’s possible connections to militant Islamic groups.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., said sources “outside of the [intelligence] community” learned about Hasan’s possible connections to the Asian country, which faces a massive Islamist insurgency and is widely believed to be Osama bin Laden’s hiding place.

Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, would not identify the sources. But he said “they are trying to follow up on it because they recognize that if there are communications – phone or money transfers with somebody in Pakistan – it just raises a whole other level of questions.”

~~~

Hasan’s finances have been a mystery since last week, when the Army major and psychiatrist allegedly shot and killed 13 colleagues at the sprawling Central Texas military base. Hasan earned more than $90,000 a year and had no dependents, yet lived in an aging one-bedroom apartment that rented for about $300 a month.

~~~

Authorities know that Hasan sent repeated e-mails, starting some time in December 2008, to a radical Muslim cleric in Yemen. That cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, formerly served as imam of a large northern Virginia mosque where Hasan worshipped. The U.S.-born cleric praised Hasan after the massacre as “a hero.”

In January, al-Awlaki told readers of his blog about “44 ways to support jihad” – a term often translated as “holy war.” Many of his points dealt with ways to fund such efforts.

“Probably the most important contribution the Muslims of the West could do for Jihad is making Jihad with their wealth,” al-Awlaki wrote. “In many cases the mujahideen are in need of money more than they are in need of men.”

~~~

Colleagues and associates have described Hasan as a loner who voiced his opposition to the wars, including his assertion that Muslims were justified in fighting American troops. Hasan’s family has said he became more distressed as he learned he was about to be deployed to Afghanistan.

“He is a kind of fundamentalist. He thinks a Muslim must defend themselves,” said Golam Akhter, a civil engineer from Bethesda, Md., who said he spoke with Hasan on several occasions at the mosque where they worshipped.

He said he knew Hasan was a doctor but didn’t know he was a member of the Army.

“He used to dress in long dresses just like Pakistanis, and that made me also concerned,” Akhter said. “Usually only the imam uses those loose and long shirts and sleeves. That made me [wonder], being very educated, why he is using the imam’s dress.”

The article notes the contact Hasan made with one radical cleric but fails to note the other contacts:

Maj. Hasan made some of the contacts while visiting known jihadist chat rooms on the Internet, according to one of The Times’ sources, a senior FBI official. He said that several people with whom Maj. Hasan was in contact had been the focus of investigations by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The other source, a military intelligence official, said those in contact with Maj. Hasan are located both in the U.S. and overseas. The official said they are “broadly known and characterized as Islamic extremists if not necessarily al Qaeda.”

~~~

These ties are in addition to Maj. Hasan’s already-reported links to radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who called Maj. Hasan a “hero” on a blog post about last week’s Fort Hood shooting, which left 13 dead and 29 wounded.

The missed connections is obvious now. Why they were missed is another issue which at the end of the day is going to come down to one of the left’s favorites….political correctness.

We on the Right knew instinctively what the media and this administration’s reaction to the most recent case of (not so) Sudden Jihadi Syndrome that occurred at Fort Hood. We knew without prompting that they would attempt to diminish the rage and anger that they knew was dwelling in the hearts of all patriotic, and life-loving Americans as they saw the event unfold. They wrongly assumed that we angered-Americans would seek out and “punish” the first Moslem we stumbled upon. This assumption on their part has angered us almost as much as the actual murders did. Are we not to be angry at whoever killed 12 of our finest, standing unarmed, and unsuspecting in their skivvies? Are we so little though-of, that they assume we are on the razors edge of abandoning of our law-abiding, Judeo-Christian culture for one of animalistic revenge? Those 20%’ers made those assumptions. They label our anger misplaced, and they label us as savages, equal or worse than the shooter, even though a grand total of ONE Moslem has been killed in vigilante-style revenge in 40 years, and only after 911, and that person is now in prison for life.

According to my numbers, the score is now 1 dead Moslem vs. approx 3500 dead Americans killed on our own soil, beginning with a certain Moslem killing a certain Kennedy, all the way through last weeks carnage.

There is certainly many Islamist’s living here at least verbally willing to continue this mayhem as taught by Mohammed. We read their words in their blogs, and we hear them on the corners of New York and Dearborn. We see them in our colleges, and yet we protect them via our laws and our customs. In some cases, we even pay their way here and pay their tuition, while our taxes help them with medical care and foodstamps if necessary.

In the minds of these tough-talkers, we do these things not because we are benevolent, but because we either “owe” them for being unbelievers, or we are simply stupid fools. In most polls taken, these verbal wanna-be Jihadi’s make up about 15-25% of Moslems worldwide. Here in America, the worse numbers show about 1-2%. Considering there are approximately 3 million Moslems living here, the potential numbers of Warriors for Allah is still significant, even if we assume only 1% of those would actually carry out jihad.

So what’s stopping them? The other 80% of us are, including the cops, and the FBI. They know full well that this isn’t England, and not only do we have armed cops, we have an armed to-the-teeth populace, and that together we can stop them fairly quickly. Strange as it sounds, Fort Hood might be “safer” for a Jihadi than my local Oak Ridge Mall is, because all of the soldier’s weapons are in lockers. But mine, and many others are on our collective hips. They may talk the big talk about martyrdom, but when it all goes down, they don’t want to die before making a big-enough splash to be counted among the “heroes” of Jihadville. They know that for as multiculturally blind as our politicians, teachers and commentators are, a big section of us still have it in us to fight, as the folks on flight 93 showed.

Some of you might be asking; Yeah, but for how long? The “long race” between those who will submit and those who will never submit is for a different discussion, but I know in my heart, the finish line is a long way off. There is another shorter, more pressing race going on between those of us who will fight when cornered, and those of us who will lash out because we perceive that our government is doing nothing to mitigate the potential for our harm. If several back-to-back episodes of solitary or small-group attacks occur, and we get the same sort of condescending pap we saw in this latest round, I sadly feel the odds of those who will lash-out against innocent Moslems will increase exponentially.

It is the race between “lashers” and the cornered that I focus on in this screed, and what our present “leaders” should be doing about it. We already know what they are NOT doing about it, and how ham-handed they’ve been in lecturing us to “behave” in light of what we’ve been seeing these past 40 years on our own soil.

More than any president we’ve ever had, Obama has the opportunity to nip two bad buds at once: The fed up zealot-vigilante, and the wanna-be holy-Jihadi.

Obama has an “in” with the Moslem populace of this country, and some say the world. His attendance of Islamic schools during childhood, and his kind words toward it, gives him credence when he talks about the faith, like no other previous president has ever had.

He needs to come out forcefully against Sunni Wahabism, and Shia Khomenism in one grand speech. (It is the speech he should have given in Egypt, but didn’t.) He can talk directly to the Moslems in this country, and give them a clear choice: Peaceful Islam, or prison/deportation.

He needs to back it up by having Congress and the Senate give the FBI, the police, and the courts the power to remove those who espouse violent Islam from our midst, instead of waiting for them to act out their twisted beliefs. He could even define all religious-based violence as akin to present (1st-amendment-questionable) hate-crime laws against minorities and gays. They hide behind our First Amendment to spread their filth, when we all know that this filth motivates others to their cause. There are some who will bring up the freedom of religion aspect of the Constitution. To those he should remind them of the history of Utah statehood, and how they had to denounce polygamy before they were admitted to the Union, and once in, they could not re-instate it. The Bushido religion of Imperial Japan is not allowed here, and neither is the virgin sacrifice of the Mayans, so there IS precedence for religious controls by the State. After all, Obama sure was quick to publicly condemn the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor, and rightfully took his religious extremism to task.

There of course needs to be solid demarcation lines within these laws, so that only calls-to-violence is prosecuted, and there needs to be zero-tolerance for this filth within our government and military. The lawyers can find a way.

Obama could pull this off, because he not only has some credibility within the Islamic community, he also will be supported by the media, and the 20%’ers. Of course the ACLU might put up some token resistance, but we all know it will be muted at best. Bush tried the tact of morally separating the peaceful from the violent, but because he was NOT a progressive-socialist, he was spit upon for even attempting it, even though he got the (un-reported) support of many peaceful Moslems in the country for shining a light on what they themselves are up against.

These religious extremists, primarily of the Islamic sort, need to be treated like the Klan was in the 70’s. Obama should emphasize their intolerance of gays, of Blacks, of women, of atheist’s. Include every bias close to the heart of Progressives everywhere. If he did all these things, he would be re-elected by a landslide by both the Left and Right, and the vigilante would be forever in his hole.

We are beginning to see what happens when the authorities treat Islamists with kid gloves. We are seeing the rise of un-healthy nationalism in England and Europe. We will see more of this, and I feel strongly, that mass violence will occur there within 5 years. It will not be pretty, and it will escalate. Multiculturalism will have failed, and good, positive acceptance along with it.

We can safely assume that Obama will not do what truly needs to be done in this regard. Some cynics might say that these Leftists actually want the rabid-nativist to rise up in a violent fashion, so that the Left can pointedly vilify them, and gain political power. I personally think that the Left is simply ignorant, and see historical Western/American culture as an impediment to their “progress”. I also see radical Islam using that same ignorance as a tool to kill us with. And by “us”, I mean moonbats and wingnuts, Black and White, gay and straight, men and women, etc and etc.

In light of the fact that Obama will never lift a finger to mitigate the fears of the fed-up among us, and that the Islamist knows he will never speak truthfully about their 7th-century outlook on life, we can expect many more incidents of solo and small-group attacks. Followed by acts of miss-directed vigilantism. Followed up with an over-reaction by government against all of us.

I wonder if someday Obama will ever come to the realization that the American/Western society he so despises and apologizes for, is the same one, and the only one, that made him possible?

1. President Bush was famous for lacking “intellectual curiosity”, while President Obama has been called “the smartest guy ever to become President.” Which one reads more books, Bush or Obama?

2. Bush was often considered to be in the grip of Big Oil. In contrast, Obama was a Harvard educated lawyer. Which industry contributed more than five times as much as the other to politicians: the oil & gas industry or lawyers/law firms?

3. Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity, and he was considered to be in the grip of the “religious right”, while Obama is considered more open-minded. In fact, Obama has said, “my faith is one that admits some doubt.” Which one refers to Jesus more in public speeches?

4. Bush was criticized for excessive federal spending and running up huge deficits. Bush’s deficit in 2008 was the largest in history. In fact, President Obama said,

“It’s a little hard for me to take criticism from folks about this recovery package after they’ve presided over a doubling of the national debt… What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place.”

Whose deficit was more than triple the size of the other’s: Bush’s 2008 deficit or Obama’s 2009 deficit?

It seems, though, that when an American military officer who is a practicing Muslim allegedly shoots forty of his fellow soldiers who are about to deploy to the two wars the United States is currently fighting in Muslim countries, some broader meaning might, over time, be discerned, especially if the officer did, in fact, yell “Allahu Akbar” while murdering his fellow soldiers, as some soldiers say he did. This is the second time this year American soldiers on American soil have been gunned down by a Muslim who was reportedly unhappy with America’s wars in the Middle East (the first took place in Arkansas, to modest levels of notice). And, of course, this would not be the first instance of an American Muslim soldier killing fellow soldiers over his disagreements with American foreign policy; in 2003, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar killed two officers and wounded fourteen others when he rolled a grenade into a tent in a homicidal protest against American policy.

Here’s a simple test: If Nidal Malik Hasan had been a devout Christian with pronounced anti-abortion views, and had he attacked, say, a Planned Parenthood office, would his religion have been considered relevant as we tried to understand the motivation and meaning of the attack? Of course. Elite opinion makers do not, as a rule, try to protect Christians and Christian belief from investigation and criticism. Quite the opposite. It would be useful to apply the same standards of inquiry and criticism to all religions.

QUESTION: Why isn’t the same standard of inquiry and criticism given to Christians and Muslims?

Another celebrity romance falls to pieces:

By Guy Adams

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

He’s crossed swords, over the years, with all the usual right-wing suspects, from car-makers to gun owners to Wall Street executives, health companies, and George W Bush. Now Michael Moore has picked a fight with a hero of the international left.

The documentary-maker has caused outrage among Hugo Chavez’s supporters by using a late-night chat show to tell a humorous anecdote about meeting Venezuela’s socialist President in a luxury hotel suite during the recent Venice Film Festival.

His two-minute yarn, told to ABC host Jimmy Kimmel earlier this month, seemed harmless enough. Moore alleged that he and his wife had been woken at 2am by a racket coming from Mr Chavez’s room and ventured upstairs to ask him to quieten down.

“A bottle and a half of tequila later,” Moore claimed, he had helped the President to write the speech he recently delivered to the UN. “At the very least, the guy owes me a year’s worth of free gasoline!” he joked.

But there was a problem with the story. A big one. The meeting that Moore so confidently described never happened. And tequila certainly wasn’t consumed: Mr Chavez is teetotal.

The duo did meet in Venice, but only in the daytime. Moore, in town to launch his new film, Capitalism, sat with Mr Chavez, who was there to promote Oliver Stone’s documentary South of the Border, for three hours. The US press were excluded from the meeting.

Supporters of Mr Chavez now suspect that Moore fabricated his anecdote to gloss over the chummy nature of that encounter. They have taken to the airwaves in a Monty Python-style PR offensive, to accuse Moore of betraying a supposed comrade.

“Michael Moore is a most unfortunate coward,” declared blogger Eva Golinger. She dubbed him “the worst of yellow journalists, a liar and storyteller on the big screen”, and said his yarn was “offensive and insulting” and a clear sign of his “hypocrisy and lack of ethics”. Franz JT Lee, a Marxist academic and blogger, claimed that the film-maker’s comments were “part of the United States’ ‘war of ideas’” against Venezuela, and said similar “propaganda” led to the rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany.

They didn’t just spark outrage on the left, though. Critics of Mr Chavez have called the level of invective against Moore – some of which was aired on Venezuelan state television – disproportionate. They believe his anecdote was intended to be a harmless, tongue-in-cheek joke. The socialist movement failed to grasp the nuances of his intended irony, they claim, because they lack a sense of humour.

Quite what the affair says about the integrity of Moore and his documentaries remains to be seen. The film-maker has declined to comment or apologise for misleading TV viewers, save for a brief message posted on his Twitter feed on Monday: “For the record, the President of Venezuela doesn’t drink.”

To go along with this break up, Moore’s office responded to Guy Adams’ article. Below is the following exchange of emails, according to Mr. Adams (to be updated, I’m sure):

Less than hour after that article had appeared on our internet site, I got an email from Mr Moore’s office. It is printed below (with email addresses and phone numbers redacted). My reply to that email is also carried in full.

“Hamdan, Basel” *****@michaelmoore.com 28/10/2009 00:49
To: “g.adams@independent.co.uk”
cc: “Weinrib, Eric”
Subject: Michael Moore

Hi Guy,

I’m Basel Hamdan, a producer in Michael Moore’s office. There is something inaccurate in the below piece:

The long meeting did, in fact, occur extremely late in the evening. I’m not sure who told you otherwise (daytime), but they are wrong. I was present, as was my colleague Eric Weinrib (cc’d).

Could you please correct the piece, if not retract it, as you use the time of day to question the veracity of the story. Please get back to me soon – we don’t want this falsehood to spread…

Thanks,
Basel Hamdan

———————
Basel Hamdan
Dog Eat Dog Films
Producer
231-922-**** X240

Guy Adams/Editorial/Independent News and Media 28/10/2009 02:02
To: “Hamdan, Basel”
cc: “Weinrib, Eric”
Subject: Re: Michael Moore

Hi Basel

It feels a little rich to be castigated for a very minor inaccuracy, given the extent of the whopper that Mr Moore has apparently told!

I will, however, happily clarify that element of the piece – on one condition.

In the interest of giving our readers a full and accurate picture of what actually went on, I would like either Mr Moore, or someone in his office, to offer an on-the-record explanation as to why he went on the Jimmy Kimmel show and claimed to have both drunk tequila with Mr Chavez and written a significant portion of his speech to the UN.

Provided you’re able to do this (and it would surely represent staggering hypocrisy if you were not) then I will of course make the correction you desire.

Yours
Guy

Guy Adams
Los Angeles Correspondent
The Independent

+1 310 396 ****

So, what happened? Well it may not surprise you to hear that I am still waiting for Mr Moore to agree to my request.

He is, we must therefore assume, happy to broadcast what appear to be substantive lies about someone, without ever explaining, apologizing or issuing proper clarification.

However journalists who write about him are expected to immediately correct any slight – and, I might add, alleged – inaccuracy in their piece, however minor. They are even invited to retract the entire article.

Mr Moore expects, therefore, to apply one rule for himself, and another for everyone else. This is surely the essence of hypocrisy. I can’t speak for what this tells us about his journalistic technique, or the reliability of his very moving documentaries. But (at risk of sounding like a tosser) I fear that it speaks volumes about his sense of entitlement.

UPDATE – Wednesday, 2pm GMT

Mr Moore’s office have emailed with what journalists among you will recognise as the “Alastair Campbell” response…

“Hamdan, Basel” *****@michaelmoor
Subject RE: Michael Moore

You are clearly not a journalist, so we will take the matter up with your editors.

Oh, that is just sooo rich!

Federal officials have said it is unlikely that Canada can supply sufficient doses of vaccine quickly enough, but that problem has nothing to do with [this administration's] refusal to allow imports of cheaper Canadian drugs, as the ad suggests.

Ahhh, the duplicity and hypocrisy of time….

Lucianne.com:

Every now and then
we like to run this picture

This is the ditherer-in-chief.

Hmmm….

So many choices…Rocky Road or pralines and cream? Do I go with more sprinkles and nuts? Or a drawdown of toppings for my sundae….?

Threw a strike and liberated 50 million….

Threw it into the dirt and did not show support for democracy in Iran and Honduras and has liberated no one…including gays.

President Obama’s foreign policy expert, Joe Biden:

…And others, more harshly, argue that Mr. Biden’s judgment on foreign policy has often been off base.

They point out that he voted against the successful Persian Gulf war of 1991, voted for the Iraq invasion of 2003, proposed dividing Iraq into three sections in 2006 and opposed the additional troops credited by many with turning Iraq around in 2007.

“When was the last time Biden was right about anything?” Thomas E. Ricks, a military writer, wrote in a blog on Sept. 24. Mr. Ricks is affiliated with the Center for a New American Security, a research organization founded by Democrats.

President Bush’s hatchet man, Darth Cheney:

“Just show me where to point and aim this…”

A show of patriotism:

Refusal to wear patriotism on his sleeve (or on his lapel):

1. If all the world hated America because of George W Bush’s 2003 invasion of Iraq….then why was America attacked on Sept 11, 2001; 2yrs before that invasion?
2. Why has Al Queda been trying to exterminate every American for the past 17yrs?
3. Did you want Bush to fail in Iraq, or did you want America to succeed?
4. Given that Osama left Afghanistan in 2001, and Al Queda was largely destroyed in Afghanistan in 2002, how did the Bush Administration “take its eye off the ball [Afghanistan] by invading Iraq” in 2003?
5. What caused the great recession of 2007?
6. How have Democrats ensured that we don’t have another $13 TRILLION dollar Great Recession?
7. If FOX, Hannity, Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, etc are examples of right wing propaganda…then what is an example of left wing propaganda?
8. If Republicans lie, and all politicians are liars, then what are some lies told by Democrats?
9. Since President Obama’s Israel/Palestine talks have failed, and he’s been unable to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and since he’s completely clueless on what to do in Afghanistan…what is PLAN B for keeping Israel from bombing Iran and starting a regional-possibly a world war?
10. Obama’s a quarter of the way done with his presidency. What will history record as his greatest accomplishment?

btw, I could come up with more, but these were my top 10. Anyone who thinks they have one that deserves being on the list, please, please, please feel free to suggest it. I probably won’t add it out of sheer laziness, but I think we’d all love to see em.

Let’s first dispel any doubt that the offered reasons for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace prize were ungenuine. He hadn’t warmed the king sized bed in the White House when he was nominated, which means that any real evaluation of his authentication as a Nobel awardee, other than the oratory of his campaign, was impossible. In the end, the Nobel Committee stated that it, “… attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” Reality and common sense in both Norway and the White House seem to have vacated the premises.

Promises made by politicians are for electioneering, and they rarely see daylight. Remember when Obama made a bold and firm commitment that he would pull out of Iraq if he were made President? That was a defining and differentiating moment in the race to the Oval Office. Did he do what he committed to do? Are some of his phantasmagorical promises also the delusions of the Norwegian Nobel Committee? We will find an answer in the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit to be held in early December.

140 nations will meet in Copenhagen to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which runs out in 2012, with a global deal supposedly intended to limit CO2 emissions, reduce the destruction of rainforests, and help developing countries to become low-carbon economies. On the surface, the publicly claimed intentions of cleaning up our emissions from our air, our garbage from the oceans, and our toxins from the soil are lofty objectives very deserving of acclamation. The reality that will arise from the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference will prove to be something altogether different. What is to become the “Copenhagen Agreement,” will in fact be the largest international redistribution of wealth ever undertaken. The Earth and our environment will enjoy no benefit.

On December 10, Obama will receive his award in Oslo, just in time to energize the “Copenhagen” agenda. Whether or not he shows up at the UN meeting, the ideological intensions and expectations have been air freighted in the form a Nobel Prize. The Nobel awarded to Obama is a very personal stimulation to procure his support and therefore the financial commitment of the U.S. to a blueprint claiming to save the world.

The Copenhagen meeting in December will require that the United States and Canada annually transfer billions of dollars to the developing world as “climate debt” for past transgressions in their emissions of CO2. A key element in the penalization process will be the degree to which a developed country meets an allocated allowable emission schedule. Countries like the U.S. and Canada will have a tougher time than most, since it is always the last 10% or 20% that is the most difficult and most expensive to “scrub” from your emissions when you have already done more than most to clean up your own mess.

Developing countries will be using starting points with disastrous emission levels, comparable to that of the U.S. and Canada over a century ago. Minor improvements will give poor countries a leg-up on developed countries. Industrialized countries will in effect be penalized for already having well equipped, technologically advanced infrastructures. Canada in particular will very likely incur the highest penalties per capita since it is a net energy producer with production requiring extensive energy consumption, and it endures cold winters and hot, humid summers. This is not to say that every industrial sector should not strive to reduce its carbon footprint. We all should. The conundrum rests in what methodology to apply to the process and to enforcement given the reality that much has already been done by developed countries, and more is planned since all levels of society have become conscious of the need to reduce pollution.

The transfer payments from developed nations to poor ones will be made through purchases of unused “credits,” as well as through outright payments which will be made over and above the current billions distributed as foreign aid. Developing countries will be compensated for “lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity,” and the funds are to be divinely distributed by the United Nations. The UN will also be the arbiter of good taste in all things CO2 emissionable, including all approvals of emission scrubbing plans and the ensuing allocations of emission credits. The agreement also leaves room for developing countries to do absolutely nothing on emissions should they feel they are not receiving enough technological and financial support from developed countries. How is that for a backdoor to escape adaptation?

An invigorated and supremely powerful United Nations is in the offing. The principal justification for turning the UN into a true world power is this: The most advanced industrialized countries are responsible for global warming which in turn is responsible for the drought and famine being suffered by the poorest nations, ergo, the most developed countries owe cash to the undeveloped ones. How more obvious can the planners be than allowing rich countries to buy offsets rather than make emission cuts at home?

Kyoto’s good intensions have mutated into a politically charged Copenhagen draft agreement for a global plan to redistribute wealth to the tune of an estimated $1.4 trillion over the coming decade, which in and of itself will have little or no impact on pollution. The agreement’s impact on climate change will be even more amorphic, nevertheless, we can expect an abundance of fear mongering on the road to ratification.

Obama’s upcoming acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize and the invisible strings attached to it, while he is quite entitled to claim it, along with his plans for Cap and Trade, may prove to be an enormously expensive exercise for all taxpayers on this continent. The “Copenhagen” supporters on the Nobel Committee, on the other hand, are counting on it.

Crossposted from The Pacific Gate Post