Corsi suggests Obama might create government dept. to censor books critical of him
Obama Nation author Jerome Corsi again suggested that Sen. Barack Obama might create a new department of the government to censor books critical of him if elected president, writing, "By placing 'Unfit for Publication' as the title of the mock-book, does the Obama rebuttal mean to suggest an Obama administration might have a censorship department in which a book critical of a President Obama might be banned from publication?"
Author Jerome Corsi, in a September 7 "WorldNetDaily Exclusive" article responding to the Obama campaign's rebuttal of his falsehood-laden book The Obama Nation, suggested that Obama might create a new department of the government to censor books critical of him if elected president. Corsi wrote, "By placing 'Unfit for Publication' as the title of the mock-book, does the Obama rebuttal mean to suggest an Obama administration might have a censorship department in which a book critical of a President Obama might be banned from publication?"
Corsi previously said on the August 16 edition on C-SPAN's Washington Journal that if Obama were elected president and someone were to write a book critical of him or to publish "a cartoon like The New Yorker," "Obama might just have to create a department of hate crimes and put them in jail." As Media Matters for America has noted, in appearances on C-SPAN and other media outlets, Corsi has promoted the falsehoods in his book even though they have been widely discredited.
From Corsi's September 7 WorldNetDaily article:
"Unfit for Publication" -- The Cover
The cover of the 41-page Obama rebuttal to "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality" is entitled "Unfit for Publication." The cover appears to be an imitation of the cover for "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out against John Kerry," which I co-authored in 2004. A seal on the cover proclaims, "Brought to You by: Bush/Cheney Attack Machine."
[...]
By placing "Unfit for Publication" as the title of the mock-book, does the Obama rebuttal mean to suggest an Obama administration might have a censorship department in which a book critical of a President Obama might be banned from publication?
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
The Troglodyte Queen running as Grampy's VP is more likely to ban books than anybody on the Democratic side.
"more likely"?!?
As far as I know, she is the ONLY post-victorian pres/vp candidate to have a documented history of trying to do so.
"By placing 'Unfit for Publication' as the title of the mock-book, does the Obama rebuttal mean to suggest an Obama administration might have a censorship department in which a book critical of a President Obama might be banned from publication?"
No. It's in the spirit of "truth in labeling" - although in this case it might be truth in libeling.
What's a "mock-book?" A book that mocks Dr. Corsi? I hope so...
There are a few "lists" of books circulating on the 'Net that are not actually what Caribou Barbie wanted banned - some of the lists actually include books that weren't published until after the incident between Palin and the head librarian she fired.
But I was able to find a rather comprehensive list of the reasons why Caribou Barbis is unfit for office through Google - from our friends at www.slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/pagenum/all/#page_start
More on Caribou Barbie...
http://thinkprogress.org/palin-digest/
I'm curious to learn why she hid her pregnancy for her "gift from God" until about a month before the child was born...and never told anyone until the child's birth, even her other children, that the baby had Downs Syndrome. Just seems peculiar ro me...
Here's a 69 page vetting report the dems did on Palin in 2006. Apparently not much has changed.
I'm still going with gidget and geezer though!
I think photoshopping is unfair, dishonest, and immoral, and would never do it.
Unless absolutely necessary.
(From a concept by several others, whose websites I can't seem to dig up right now. Accreditation available eventually?)
When the Simpsons arrive in Alaska, a guy in a toll booth welcomes them and gives them a $1,000.
LOL@Corsi complaining about Obama's campaign suggesting that his dishonest and inaccurate book sucked and shouldn't be published. That's such a disproportionately critical response to his published-for-profit falsehoods and distortions about why Obama shouldn't hold elected office. Who does Obama think he is, demanding to be portrayed somewhat accurately in print while running for the Presidency in a time of global unrest and uncertainty?
Corsi should think himself fortunate if his idiotic ramblings are only considered to be "Unfit for Publication"; If Obama gave him the full "Grand Theft Auto"-style beating I wouldn't applaud it, but I would understand.
That might be the first of his claims which turned out to be true!
LOL, just kidding. Michelle Obama probably wouldn't say "honky," but it's obvious that she can throw down South Side-style!
Let's face it, Palin's only chance against Mama Obama would be shooting at her with a sniper rifle from a helicopter flying overhead...just like she hunts wolves! Even then, she'd have to be careful...Michelle has those long arms and that sick reach.
It's a good thing Liddy wasn't imprisoned with her, because his strategy of staying outside to bust people up with the jab wouldn't have worked. That would have looked like Ernie Terrell trying to hit Ali. "What's my name, Liddy?" "Michelle! Michelle!"
What happened to his scuz-bucket twin John O'Neill, the john O'Neill of Swift Boat Fame in '04?
The same John O'Neill that had decorated himself with a Navy Expeditionary Medal! No one from 1961-1979 earned that Navy Decoration except O'Neill, in otherwords not even O'Neill! His list of medals as printed in Navy Times in '04 shows just a decoration listed!
The same John O'Neill that Senator Kerry wiped up the floor in a early 1970's debate! O'Neill carried a grunge of having the floor wiped up clean with him by Kerry, from '70's to 2004. He never even served with Kerry in Vietnam, what a douche both of these pigs are!!
Merc,
Corsi does Obama a favor with this book by allowing Obama to set the record straight or at least present Obama's version.
Corsi is history. His 15 minutes of fame occurred in the last presidential election. Time to move on.
"I'm thinking of skipping the Christmas shopping this year, and instead starting vicious rumors and spreading lies about all of my friends and family."
Christmas shopping??! Colonel, I'm deeply disappointed - I thought you were a dedicated warrior in the war on xmas. How are we libs going to kill all that jolliness and joy without you?
O'Neill slimed his way back under the rock he came from.
For WingNutDaily to publish Corsi's latest BS shows just how discredited they really are.
BTW, I have a friend who works in a bookstore. She told me Corsi's book when it first came out, sold at best, one a day. Since then, nowadays, it doesn't sell at all.
The only reason it has a "bestseller" label is due to right-wing groups buying it up in bulk, the way the Scientologists did with Hubbard's books.
Arch,
Even when one disagrees with authors, it is good to have them out there. Even the highly partisan authors. I see Woodward is releasing another book and saw him on the Today Show criticizing Bush yet again.
Let the partisans investigate Obama, Palin, McCain, and Lieberman. Lets see what they can dig up and whether anything they unearth will stick. :-)
AA,
You wrote:
"Even when one disagrees with authors, it is good to have them out there. Even the highly partisan authors."
The problem with Corsi, AA, is that there is no room for disagreement with the truth. Corsi lied repeatedly. If something is true, "disagreeing" doesn't matter.
AA,
You wrote:
"Even when one disagrees with authors, it is good to have them out there. Even the highly partisan authors."
The problem with Corsi, AA, is that there is no room for disagreement with the truth. Corsi lied repeatedly. If something is true, "disagreeing" doesn't matter.
Fried,
I see your point. However each 'fact' that Corsi writes about has to be judged separately. You say he lies but you need to be more specific. Otherwise it just sounds like partisan ranting. I never have ever read more than a checkout line headline of the National Enquirer but they broke the story on the Edwards affair. Do their stories about Elvis make everything they say about Edwards a lie?
AA,
By making the corrections he did about Obama listed above, he either is admitting that he lied about Obama or did sloppy research.
Your Edwards analogy would be correct if the NE had lied about Edwards previously. Corsi's book about Kerry made me leery of his Obama book, but since he is now admitting his lies, it makes me more wary of other "facts." By the way, did you ever read Obama's 40-page rebuttal?
Fried,
I saw the link today and read the first couple of 'corrections'. They seemed to be in the same vein as Corsi's corrections. In other words, I found them boring. The corrections seemed to me to be so minor as to not warrant any further perusal. Were there anything big, I am confident MMFA will highlight it. Since I did not read Corsi's book I found that at this time it unnecessary to read through a list of "corrections".
I've read a good number of science, technical, and biographical books to know that most of them do contain errors so it does not surprise me that Corsi's book also contains some.
I have no doubt that Corsi is trying to sell books just like I have no doubt Bob Woodward is also trying to sell books. We can also include Hillary, Obama, Bill, McClellan, Rove, etc., etc. hawking their tomes.
I have not been interested in reading Corsi's book, but all this flap about minor facts discrediting the whole book makes me wonder if MMFA doth protest too much?
Read for yourself:
http://obama.3cdn.net/a74586f9067028c40a_5km6vrqwa.pdf
AA,
I guess you believe Corsi when he says that groups tied to Al Qaeda are backing McCain as well, right?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=57678
or that McCain's fortune is tied to organized crime:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57354
or that he's too close to lobbyists:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=56479
or that McCain puts Mexico first:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=45737
If you think Obama's corrections are minor, you obviously must now believe that McCain is a traitor, correct?
Fried,
I haven't read Corsi's book. Have you?
AA,
I haven't, but I have seen him on the interview circuit and his purported defenses of his book to know its not something I want to waste my time on. I have also read excerpts from it, checked those to be in context by looking them up in a bookstore and read the rebuttals and have found the rebuttals to be more accurate.
I think, if you believe what he wrote about Obama, you should believe the articles I posted that he wrote about McCain.
Fried,
I have not read Corsi's book so I neither believe nor disbelieve him. Same holds true for your links. I am not interested in what Corsi has to say. In any event, I would judge each fact on it's merits. I do not see this as having to believe everything Corsi wrote if I believe just one thing.
You're a disgusting hypocrite Corsi and you wilted and hung up on your Thom Hartmann interview when he gave you a dose of your own medicine.
It's becoming more and more clear that there is nobody on the right (and I'm including party officials, the media and cogs in the propaganda machine like Corsi) who has any interest in discussing anything of substance. Discarded flags, terrorist fist jabs, and complete lies seem to be the whole bag of tricks.
Anybody else here who gets righty emails, have you seen the "horrifying knock knock joke"? I got it this morning, and it's so pathetic you can't even get mad. It's racist, not clever, and based on Obama speaking in a stereotypical "black" dialect. More Conedy.
Haven't seen it, though I've just finished watching this screed on Palin's church. Wonder why we aren't hearing any calls for her to denounce her zionist/gay hating preacher? She speaks at the church frequently, so it isn't like she doesn't know...
Care to post the joke, Col.?
Yipes, Snoop, I watched that video. Wild crowd Mrs. Loopner runs with.
I didn't want to post the "joke", thinking it was an email from a limited circle of old retired cranks whose Republican emails I've horned in on. Out of curiosity, I googled "horrifying knock knock joke Obama" and got thousands of hits. These are obviously put out there in bulk, so I'll link to the first site that came up on my search.
Comment from the site;
Don't fret...it's clean and clever, a tad humorous politically and...
I guess it's "clean", I don't see "clever" at all, and there's nothing "political" in it by any stretch. Just some low-level yuk-yuk racist fear-mongering, done by people who probably have a "very good black friend at work" who gets deleted from these email groups.
I'm packing my bags. I hear it's Russia and North Pole adjacent, but I'm not sure how Armageddon will affect The Evil Empire and Santa Claus. I have so much to learn.
You're all missing the point. Until Barack HUSSEIN Obama explicitly assures people that he is not going to establish a censorship department, these are valid questions.
<end sarcasm>
Jeff,
I know that was meant to be funny/sarcastic...but sadly I think you hit on the way things actually are. It basically means that anything & everything is up for grabs for discussion by these nitwits, who are counting on the fear factor [hey it's worked in the past] to scare otherwise sane voters off Obama.
ps. I meant left wingers. I get them confused. ;-)
hahaha... what an opening...
Trails of my Father -BHO
Know You're Powerless, A Message To America's Daughters - Nancy Pelosi
It Takes a Village (and more) - Hillary
My Lies.. oops I mean My Life - Bill Clinton
Fried,
I'm sure you can find them if you take a look at your own bookshelf.
Off the top of my head Al Franken's books come to mind. So do Woodward's Corsi's got two books out, one attacking Kerry, one attacking Obama. Big deal. If someone writes a book attacking McCain, more power to them.
ps. One more thought. We can include Dan Rather on the left, although I am not sure he wrote a book. However he did try to influence an election with phony documents.
Ok,
Show me the lies, AA from Woodward. Should be easy, right?
Fried,
I am just pointing out books that are critical of Bush that are similar to Corsi's like you asked. I have no desire to make a tit for tat comparison. If you think Corsi is lying, I do not care.
I think you should post the lies of Woodward if you think he and Corsi are of the same scholarly level.
Fried,
Why do you again try to switch the conversation? I did not say they were both on the same scholarly level. I gave you a few examples and you are fixated on this.
I got it a long time ago that you don't like Corsi. Time to move on.
AA,
I said name authors on the left who have smeared those on the right like Corsi. You mentioned Woodward. I didn't. I would hate author, AA, who spread lies about any politician and represented them as fact.
I'm curious. Which Woodward book was a smear, Plan Of Attack, Bush At War or State Of Denial?
:-)
Good thing Democrats never do that!
It's page one in the Republican play book...standard operating procedure. Republicans win elections that way...and by assuming their voters are dumb and gullible.
Kyle,
Then why is it they keep calling them dumb and gullible?
AA,
Right now the number of people who think that Obama is a Muslim is increasing in this country, not decreasing. Is that a sign of an educated populace?
When emails go around like this one and are believed without question, are we educated?:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/50lies.asp
Or when McCain, et al score points by saying that Obama voted against funding the troops when McCain has as well. Or when Palin scores points by saying she said "Thanks, but no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere," but no one checks to see that she actually kept the money from it and had said earlier that she would not let anyone nationally call the project a waste.
When the Right claims that the Left "hates the troops," but their own presidential candidate misses war votes constantly, how is he for the troops?
How can we be considered a tremendously educated populace when we respond to a survey overwhemingly thinking that America is on the wrong track, yet the candidate who brags about voting with the President 90% of the time has a legitimate, if not favored shot at the White House?
Our population makes a huge deal about a flag pin on one candidate, but does not berate the opposing candidate when he fails to wear one at his party's acceptance speech.
Our population believes that Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility, yet doesn't notice when record deficits arise after their leadership.
Our population seems to think that Palin is a "change" agent, but she left her small town $20 million in debt.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12987.html
She hired a lobbyist, but she represents someone that will "shake up" Washington.
She touts her "executive" experience, but no one follows up!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122065537792905483.html
Fried,
You're examples do not prove your point. It seem to me that you are conflating the populace with personally selected and simplistic criticisms. I think your examples again only show condescension for those on the right.
Many on the right have been upset with Bush and Congress over the huge spending increases. If Obama were running a campaign promising spending cuts, you'd see mass defections to the Dems. Instead Obama promises a heck of lot more spending than McCain. When I heard Obama say during his acceptance speech in Denver his plan for paying for all those welfare state promises was to simply increase taxes on the rich, I laughed out loud.
We know Obama wants to drastically increase the size of government. McCain might not be perfect, but he's better in our minds than Obama.
So your argument that people are dumb and gullible because they want McCain and Palin over Obama and Lieberman just because Bush and Congress spent a lot, is not accurate.
My examples show how the U.S. population is easily duped, AA. More and more people believe a lie about Obama, why? How is that condescension for those on the right?
"Many on the right have been upset with Bush and Congress over the huge spending increases. If Obama were running a campaign promising spending cuts, you'd see mass defections to the Dems. Instead Obama promises a heck of lot more spending than McCain. When I heard Obama say during his acceptance speech in Denver his plan for paying for all those welfare state promises was to simply increase taxes on the rich, I laughed out loud."
You might have laughed out loud, but you are supporting a man who admits he agreed with Bush at least 90% of the time when Bush grew the government bigger than ever and is leaving the biggest deficit in history.
"We know Obama wants to drastically increase the size of government. McCain might not be perfect, but he's better in our minds than Obama."
We do?
"So your argument that people are dumb and gullible because they want McCain and Palin over Obama and Lieberman just because Bush and Congress spent a lot, is not accurate."
First of all, hilarious slip! Second of all, the memo regarding Palin from the McCain camp is that she will stand up to lobbyists and curb government spending and reform. How can someone who hired a lobbyist for her town and secured more earmarks than any other governor be considered an agent of change in this area?
That's why I think Americans are gullible, AA.
Here's another example:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-McCain-Palin.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin
Palin has asked Washington for 10x the money per citizen as Obama has, yet, I bet many Americans will see her as a "reformer" and a 'maverick.'
MM - You already demolished this guy, MOVE ON! I wish you would WASTE your time, and our donations, on this feeble little websites like friggin WorldNetDaily.
It seems to me to be much more powerful when you skewer and provide deep insightful fact checks on the MSM instead. We all know those places are driving their agendas already.
But as side note: I'm all for a commission or reinstatement of an equal-time law or someway to cut-down on these radical publications.
Some points to ponder on Presidential criticism, courtesy of Theodore Roosevelt (via the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial Society):
(In case anybody asks, it was from a column which Mr. Roosevelt wrote for The Kansas City Star as appeared on May 7, 1918.)
Unless the Democrats start learning how to fight dirty and stop rolling over on key issues they will lose. Period. Once again the Big-lie-Again party is stealing the real Pailin library censorship issue and turning it around in classic Rovian style. Just like they co-opted the “change” thing. Before long they’ll be saying that Obama wants Washington to succeed from the Union like Palin’s pals wanted for Alaska. Today the polls show McSame is leading. Time to wake up and smell the toast burning. No more truth filled rational reasons in pleading your case. They don’t work for a mass of near illiterate’s mouth breathers with the attention span of 12 year olds when it comes to politics. And of whom most believe in a magic invisible floating kingdom in the sky. They like simple and easy to understand insults of 3 or 4 words or less. “Where’s the beef?” And “Flip flopper!” are classic examples. Oh and “community organizer” is fresh off the cheap shot express. I get the feeling that Obama thinks that playing nice and giving in on drilling and corporate invasion of privacy laws etc. will garner independent votes… it won’t. Ironically it has the opposite effect. It’s perceived as weak. He wants to play Shakespeare to a sitcom and cheap shot loving crowd. Nice guys finish last and if Dems can’t win this one maybe they really can’t survive in this new landscape of BS. A victim of the laws of political evolution. Oh irony sweet irony. Devoured by a new beast that uses an armor of lies.
Irony101, you called it. The Democratic party has to start using the word "LIARS". Thats what they are.
This might be a little off topic, but what we saw at the Republican Convention is very scary, where legitimate protest was treated like terrorism;
AP photo / Matt Rourke
Tyranny on Display at the Republican Convention
Tyranny on Display at the Republican Convention
There are times when I visit the comments page for certain threads, when I half hope/expect to see nothing but post after post reading: HAW!! HAW!! HAW!!" This is definitely one of those threads. If he didn't have the audience to speak for and to that he has, he'd be truly laughable.