Yesterday, noted conspiracist, Islamophobe, and Fox Business regular Pam Geller forwarded an explosive allegation: that the military had “overruled” President Obama's order to abort the Osama bin Laden kill mission. As we detailed, Geller is so committed to trying to make Obama look bad that she was willing to casually accuse the military of essentially committing sedition. (Geller later updated with a second story that contradicted the details of the first.)

Her source for the allegation and the update was an anonymous writer named “Ulsterman,” who regularly posts articles at “NewsFlavor” and other sites with user-submitted content. Ulsterman can be found tackling tough issues like whether Julia Roberts has gotten a “boob job” or if “a few more pizzas really account for the considerable increase in her breast size.” Of more interest, however, are Ulsterman's series of “interviews” with a “long time D.C. insider” making fantastical allegations about the goings-on in the Obama administration.

Ulsterman's interviews with the “White House Insider” don't pass the smell test.

Here's a snippet of one of the “insider's” answers from an interview Ulsterman published yesterday regarding the bin Laden mission. The “insider” purports to describe the dynamic in the room during the “now famous photo” of Obama and his national security team during the bin Laden raid. Apparently, Obama's national security team just pretended he wasn't there:

Another interesting tidbit regarding this is that the Vice President was already “up to speed” on the operation. A source indicated they believe Hillary Clinton had personally made certain the Vice President was made aware of that day's events before the president was. The now famous photo released shows the particulars of that of that room and its occupants. What that photo does not communicate directly is that the military personnel present in that room during the operation unfolding, deferred to either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates. The president's role was minimal, including their acknowledging of his presence in the room.

And here's another comment from “the insider” from earlier in the interview:

Panetta then made plans to proceed with an on-ground assault. This information reached either Hillary Clinton or Robert Gates first (likely via military contacts directly associated with the impending mission) who then informed the other. Those two then met with Panetta, who informed each of them he had been given the authority by the president to proceed with a mission if the opportunity presented itself. Both Gates and Clinton warned Panetta of the implications of that authority - namely he was possibly being made into a scapegoat. Panetta admitted that possibility, but felt the opportunity to get Bin Laden outweighed that risk. During that meeting, Hillary Clinton was first to pledge her full support for Panetta, indicating she would defend him if necessary. Similar support was then followed by Gates. The following day, and with Panetta's permission, Clinton met in private with Bill Daley and urged him to get the president's full and open approval of the Panetta plan. Daley agreed such approval would be of great benefit to the action, and instructed Clinton to delay proceeding until he had secured that approval.

We are supposed to believe this “insider” is privy to the intricate details -- right down to a play-by-play of conversations between the Director of the CIA, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense -- of some of the most important and closely guarded national security meetings in recent history, and chose to share this unvarnished information with an anonymous blogger who writes for a user-submitted content farm?

Here's an older “interview” wherein Ulsterman channeled his righteous journalistic rage to comically browbeat the “insider” into explaining how Michelle Obama is “racist.” (Formatting from the original -- Ulsterman's questions appear in normal font, and the “insider's” responses are in italics.)

Tell the story. What did you hear Michelle Obama say? It's important...Don't you tell me what is important in this - don't you...I said no. That story doesn't mean -expletive- in all of this. Not a damn thing.

It is important...it gives us a reference of how this White House sees the country. That IS important. Share the story - I want you to say it. No.

You don't care for the First Lady, do you? No - no, what I mean...that is not an issue here. Nobody cares about that -expletive-. What has gotten into you? Who have you...

Is the First Lady racist? So you think she's racist? Describe what you heard - what you saw. Oh my god...

Is Michelle Obama racist? Say it. Is she? You said it before. Say it now. Is the First Lady racist?

YES! Ok - she is a-a-a...she is - she is what you say she is. You know what I told you. I don't need to tell you again.

Yes you do - and you are going to say it again. It needs to be part of this - people need to know. I'm printing that story. Say it - say the First Lady is a racist.

Let me make this clear - I am gonna talk about the Clintons in 2012. I am gonna talk about who the Democrats don't wanna see get the nomination for the Republicans in 2012 - that is what we agreed to talk about, right? I told you that story in private - it's not meant to be published along with this stuff we are talking about here.

We will talk about the Clintons, we will talk about that other stuff - and then you are going to share that story. You are going to explain - you are going to share what you saw and heard. You just said you think the First Lady is racist. I want you to explain why - I want you to share that story. You WILL share that story...

PART THREE COMING SOON...

What an exciting cliffhanger!

In the explosive follow-up “interview,” the “insider” calls Michelle Obama a “classless high class bi-ch,” because she supposedly refused to shake hands with an unnamed wealthy, elderly, white donor/veteran/business owner because he smelled bad (or something). Then she supposedly made “redneck” jokes about the guy. (“Oh my God, I don't think redneck is contagious but I wasn't about to find out!”)

Sounds likely, and not at all like the right-wing caricature of the First Lady.

Last year, Ulsterman published a series of “insider” interviews alleging that there was a scandal of some kind breaking soon -- a scandal so serious that it could only be discussed using clichés. The supposed conversations about this scandal read like high school-level fiction written by someone that has read too many Tom Clancy novels:

Specifically on the White House scandal again - I was told a report was coming soon. Something from a mainstream media outlet. Have you heard something similar? Where did you hear that? Your newspaper days coming back to you now?

Just something I heard - reliably. Have you heard anything similar? (pause) Yes. Many people have. This thing is percolating just under the surface right now. Sooner - not later, the pot is gonna start boiling. Yeah, someone is about to test the waters with this thing. I've heard that. Then again, I've heard that for a while now, so who knows, huh? I'd watch yourself though - told you that before. Be very careful who you are talking to on this. These people don't play nice.

But nothing more specific? A name? No-no-no. Not going there - not yet. I don't have the protection. Read the Times. Somebody there has sniffed it out. And a guy over at the Post. If the Post starts to get on it, the Times will probably go ahead and break it open, loyalty to the White House be damned. I told you before, parts of the story have already been given out publicly here and there. One part will lead to another and then another. It's underway right now. Every week a little bit more shows itself.

You really like this cloak and dagger stuff don't you? (laughs) Yeah, I suppose I do. But I also take it seriously, and you should too. Your blog thing is reaching the eyes and ears of some people very high up, and it's driving them absolutely nuts.

Not surprisingly, Ulsterman has been accused of fabricating stories in the past.

Here's just one example, documented by a website committed to detailing Ulsterman's fabrications. Last November, Ulsterman ran an article at Newsflavor about a Mount Royal University “professor” named “Jan Wendt” who had supposedly declared conservatism a “mental illness” in a study that was going to be published in the “Canadian Journal of Naturalism.” However:

There is no Professor Jan Wendt at Mount Royal University. There is also no such publication as the Canadian Journal of Naturalism. If there was, a sociological study on partisan belief would not be published in a naturalism journal.

Jan Wendt is a fictional creation of “Ulsterman,” and so are all the quotes he attributes to her. And not only is the interview with her a complete fabrication, but the photograph that “Ulsterman” attached to the “interview” was taken from a stock photo website.

I placed a call to Mount Royal University this morning, and they confirmed that there is no record of a “Jan Wendt” teaching at their institution.

In addition to his “insider” interviews, Ulsterman has published other outlandish stories, including a tale of “Sex and Murder In The Land of Obama” sent to him “via a message to my Facebook account.” Though Ulsterman acknowledged he hadn't been able to verify the details of the story by the time he published, he posted it and decided to let the “readers to determine for themselves the validity of what the author of this story claims to have seen.”

The story is a first person account of a young man allegedly walking in on Obama in the middle of a drug-fueled gay sex tryst in a Chicago bathroom. The man Obama was allegedly having sex with was “murdered ten years later shortly after Barack Obama declared he was running for President”:

I know what I saw and I know what I heard. I know who I saw. Maybe it was some kind of phase he was going through at the time. Maybe he was experimenting with a different lifestyle. Maybe the death of that man was just a coincidence. I don't know the answers to that. I just know what I know. I just know what I heard and saw. On that night I heard Barack Obama in that conference room with another man. I saw Barack Obamastep out of that room with another man. I smelled what I think was some kind of drug they were using. And I know that the other man who was in that room with Barack Obama was murdered about ten years later shortly after Barack Obama declared he was running for President of the United States.

That is my story. I hope that you share it. If something happens to me now, you will know why.

After publication, Ulsterman updated with information uncovered by his “Facebook Army” that “would support some of the specific claims” of the original story. Including, apparently, the revelation that the drug smell “would most likely have been 'poppers', a drug that is used predominantly within the gay community”:

Since publication, many within the Ulsterman Facebook Army have come forward with evidence that would support some of the specific claims made within the recollection above. The strange smell coming from the conference room would most likely have been “poppers”, a drug that is used predominantly within the gay community. Its smell is said to alter quickly from sweet to that of “rank, dirty laundry”.

Ulsterman is clearly a journalist that should be taken very seriously, which is why several conservative bloggers have promoted Ulsterman's allegations about the Bin Laden mission.

Some examples:

• At RedState, contributor “streiff” writes: “I don't stand by what follows because I don't know the author or the website. It also falls into the 'too good to check' category.” Though he is clearly skeptical of its veracity, Streiff links to the Ulsterman story because the account “has a greater ring of truth” than the “developing White House hagiography” about how the Bin Laden mission transpired.
• At Pajamas Media, Roger L. Simon explains that “we don't know the truth of this” but reprints portions of Ulsterman's supposed interview with the insider.
• Instapundit Glenn Reynolds links to the Simon post and notes:

LEON PANETTA, NOT OBAMA, ORDERED HIT ON BIN LADEN? Let me just say that I find the sourcing on this not too believable. The story might be true, but I'll need a lot more convincing. This is telling too many people what they want to hear. And I've been following “White House Insider” for a while, but, well, I'm not convinced -- and I really hope he's bogus, because if he's for real, God help us.

Apparently it's more important for conservative bloggers to continue to foster their caricatures of President Obama than to give their readers accurate information.

UPDATE:

In a new post today, Geller again links to Ulsterman and writes that her post yesterday “on this subject had heads exploding across the blogosphere.” She adds that “if you are getting a lot of flak, you know you have hit the target.” Yeah, that must be it.