When they can’t attack the message…
…they attack the messenger.
This is all they’ve got (vid at link if you can stomach it):
That’s it. Not a single refutation of a single fact in the book. Bill Maher can’t bring himself to open it and read what’s in between the covers. Why? Because he and all of his enablers in Hollywood, D.C., and Manhattan are in a state of denial about Obama’s Culture of Corruption. They don’t want to hear it, see it, or smell it. Unlike many brave whistleblowers who worked in the Obama trenches and who have seen the light, the liberal elites don’t want to know the truth.
Maher sneers that Obama has only been in office six months.
Hey, Einstein: That. Is. The. Freaking. Point.
***
Here’s another pathetic attempt to “debunk” Culture of Corruption from the lavishly-funded operatives at Media Matters, who claim I “distorted” Liza Mundy’s biograpy of Michelle Obama because — gasp! — I didn’t mention in my book that Mrs. Obama’s father had multiple sclerosis.
The Media Matters crew tosses out various ad hominems and non sequiturs, but fails to refute my fundamental point: Michelle Robinson Obama was literally born into the Daley patronage machine and political corruptocracy. She worked for that machine, followed Daley legal counsel Valerie Jarrett to the University of Chicago Medical Center, saw her salary triple after her husband won his Senate seat, and brought Jarrett and other Daley intimates into the East Wing. The nutroots defend Mrs. O by citing her “cynicism” of machine politics.
Well, yes. She’s very good at expressing “cynicism” and disdain for the dance partners who brought her to power. It’s the Obama Way.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 Comments
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsThe SIGA scandal: Calls for investigation mount
January 27, 2012 02:13 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 Comments
Obama’s Green Robber Barons
January 25, 2012 09:13 AM by Michelle Malkin
89 CommentsAttention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
Of Course: MF Global COO Still Listed as EPA Financial Adviser
December 28, 2011 11:01 AM by Doug Powers
30 Comments
Categories: Corruption
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"JustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
BTW, I thought the fictional “Sh|faced” by Ann Coulter was hyseterical. Then again, being as Coulter has slowly descended into lunacy, I wouldn’t put it past her.
Only recently has LGF not been considered a conservative site. For me, that’s where I first started seeing the labeling.
I also noted Hot Air. Here’s a link, read the whole thing. See if that passes your smell test.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/31/poll-28-of-republicans-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-america/comment-page-8/#comments
Smartest, funniest comedian in the world and he can’t figure out how to open a book. (Crickets Chirping)
I am seeing some of those comments as sarcasm, and some having come from just about anyone. Who says everyone who posts on that site are conservatives? My point is, generally speaking, we are considerate of our differences, unless they are way over the loony top, which most conservatives are NOT. I don’t see this as a trend.
happyscrapper:
…and Creationists and birthers are way over the loony top. Unfortunately, they have a strong presence among conservatives and the comments section of this blog.
I discovered LGF before I discovered Michelle’s site. I read the comments for a couple years and saw how they were slowly changing to a kind-of “geek meets star wars buffs” site. And Charles Johnson either changed, or misrepresented himself at the beginning. It has not been a conservative site for a very long time, if ever. I would say more libertarians with some of the same views as conservatives, but not true conservatives.
Charles Johnson described himself as “left-of-center” before 9-11. I don’t think he has ever changed to be honest.
…
Well, personally, I don’t find those lables offensive. If creationist means one who believes God created the world, then I am a creationist. If birther means someone who questions why Obama won’t show his birth certificate (and MANY other things about his past), then I am a birther. So what? Lables don’t mean that much to me. Except for Moron, which is my lable for liberals.
I’ve never seen name-calling as being sarcasm. As a parent, I even taught my daughters when they were young that people name-call because they can’t discuss an issue intelligently.
I’m sure not everyone who posts there is a conservative; however, there are some who were making the comments who state they are.
I’m glad you don’t see a trend. I do and that’s my prerogative.
I didn’t know that. I spent a lot of time on that site years ago and really enjoyed the comments. A lot of sensible conservative thought and very clever, funny posters. But it changed over time and I got bored with it. Also, they have so many commenters that many of the items had thousands of comments. I couldn’t keep up, even if I wanted to. There aren’t enough hours in the day. Maybe for someone who sits in mommy’s basement all day and does nothing but that site. I spend a lot of time on MM’s site, but not nearly what they do over at LGF!
Thank you for making my point.
Happyscrapper:
…if you believe god used evolution as the mechanism then you are not a creationist.
If you seriously think that Obama was not born in Hawaii then you are a birther.
Both positions are worthy of ridicule, and our host has even ridiculed the latter.
Yes, it is.
moonsbreath:
You mean this:
…if you are a birther or creationist as I have previously defined (like I said, creationists does not mean simply, belief in god) you deserved to be ridiculed and it’s not simply about disagreeing with you, it’s about those things being insane.
…if you are too open-minded your brain will fall out.
No one deserves to be ridiculed. Those who resort to ridicule only do so because they cannot discuss a topic intelligently.
And if you’re not open minded enough, your brain will shrivel and die.
If you are using Zeroangel to make your point, there is nothing further to discuss. Anyone who believes in things unseen is “insane”, according to him. Enough said. I am done. Seriously, I won’t discuss this any further, as I have more important things to do!!
And you just made my point about Zero. Thank you!
Moonsbreath:
Fred Phelps? Scientologists? Jeanne Garafolo? 9-11 Truthers?
Nonsense, some things are just too stupid to take seriously.
So where do you stand on the theory that 9-11 was an inside job?
Happyscrapper:
Strawman. Lying for the sake of your argument again I see. This is false, it would necessitate me believing my parents, my wife, and various other family members are insane. I don’t. My beef is with fundamentalists as I have said many times before. It’s amazing to me how you folks circle the wagons around lunatics.
Happyscrapper:
So, I am thinking you will never ridicule LGM again, right?
I’ll bite and then I too need to leave.
I’m not going to go through each, but I can disagree with what they believe and stand for without resorting to ridiculing them. In other words, I don’t need to stoop to their level.
The difference is that there are some who have to state that something is stupid. Therefore, giving it relevance, which it doesn’t deserve.
Again, I can disagree with the theory that 9-11 was an inside job and I can state actual facts to back-up my claim. I don’t have to resort to ridiculing anyone to make a valid point.
Now, I need to go. You have a great day.
You would be wrong. lgm is not a conservative. You were talking about conservatives ridiculing conservatives, weren’t you?
moonsbreath:
…but you wouldn’t mind if someone else ridiculed them, after all, they are worthy of ridicule.
…only because the band wagon of stupidity has been jumped up so thoroughly WRT birthers and creationists. They are hijacking the conservative movement and making us all look like fools. How can this not make you upset? That is, unless of course, you are one of them.
…and the truthers would ignore or distort your facts and continue to be insane. The exact same thing can be said of creationists and birthers. There’s no sense in presenting the facts, because they won’t accept them.
Anyhow, so which flavor of lunatic are you? Birther or creationist? Even MM thinks you are a loon if it’s the former.
Sorry, Moonbreath was talking about conservatives, not you. But my point is the same. I will continue to ridicule anyone I feel deserves it.
happyscraper:
It seems to me, in the following exchange with moonsbreath, you seem to say that no one is worthy of ridicule. Is that wrong? Does that only apply to those that you agree with? Are you resorting to ridicule when you chastise LGM because you cannot discuss his points intelligently or is it OK when you do it?
Happyscrapper:
…glad you agree. So you won’t mind when I rididule birthers and creationists, right?
*ridicule. Sorry typos.
Why yes, yes it is.
Don’t mind at all. Ridicule away. Now, I know it is futile to debate you, Zero, so I am leaving. The dishwasher is cleaning my kitchen and the crockpot is making dinner. But I still have windows to wash, and MM’s book to read. This is a waste of time. Bye.
happyscrapper:
Excellent! I’m sure MM appreciates this too being as how she has ridiculed birthers in the past as well. Enjoy your day!
Not so, but I can see how it might appear that way from your point of view.
MM has posted that she believes Obama was born in Hawaii, and so he is a citizen. But she has also posted that the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause in the Constitution needs resolution in the courts. I believe that the constitutional requirement of a natural born citizen means the candidate must be born to parents who are citizens at the time of birth — Obama’s father was not.
As for your bugaboo about creationists, please use Bible verses to debunk what they believe. You may want your distant uncle to be a monkey — mine was not.
Actually, Zero, I have another question for you…
Do you not wonder WHY Obama won’t resolve the birth certificate issue? Maybe he is perfectly legal and born in Hawaii. In fact, he probably was. But what, then, is he hiding? Is it o.k. that he won’t show it??? And what about all the other stuff from his past that he has hidden? College transcripts, health records, etc. I don’t think this is “conspiracy moonbat talk”. It is a real issue!
Since apparently you’re the self appointed Czar of Lunacy, I suppose it’s up for you to decide.
I don’t consider myself a “birther.” I am curious as to the constitutional factor.
Until this administration passes a law that states you can’t ask questions of our dear leader, I believe people have a right to ask whatever they want, even if it sounds crazy to others. Make of that what you may.
As to my beliefs, religious or spiritual, I have no interest in discussing this with you. In other words, none of your damn business.
You also keep stating “MM thinks….” I have to wonder how old you are.
Great post, moon! Way to go!
so zero; explain for me how scientists acknowledge australia broke off from between africa and india and over the millenia has drifted to it’s present position. in all that time, the population of australia didn’t morph into asians or white, they remained essentially a mix of indian and african appearing people. so how did we get white caucasian peoples, black negroid peoples, asian peoples? or are you saying white monkeys grew into white people in europe, yellow monkeys grew into yellow people in asia, and black monkeys grew into black people in africa? and they all grew through darwinian theory to exactly like the same monkeys of the other areas. some didn’t continue to have tails, some didn’t continue to walk on all four, some didn’t have enlarged canines? wtf.
Yeah, kinda makes you think there was some intelligence involved, wouldn’t you say?
Steve Martin can’t read?
Michelle M. – I bought your book and just finished the chapter on Jarrett and Michelle O’s rise through the thuggery ranks of Chicago with the vault into the White House – Wow…just wow. Everybody – go find a copy of this book and enjoy! Well done! I will be glad to give my book to someone if you will leave a comment that you would like to read it.
Um…Johnny Carson is dead.
Dave Turnson:
from the previously referenced MM article:
She equates “birthers” with 9-11 “Truthers.” If that isn’t outright calling them lunatics, nothing is.
Why? It won’t do any good anyhow because they are lunatics.
Actually, I don’t really “want” it one way or another. I am concerned with the truth though. It would be more accurate to say our distant “cousins,” and yes, I’m sorry you are related to a monkey. This is every bit as much as fact as the fact that the sun is a huge nuclear reactor.
happyscrapper:
You mean why he won’t release the super-duper-long-form and will only release the document that the State Department requires? Who knows? Maybe because he doesn’t have to and doesn’t want to give lunatics the time of day? It’s also possible that it says he is a Muslim or something else that would get lunatics annoyed. Point is, he doesn’t have to.
moonsbreath:
Fair enough. Furthermore, those of us that think you are crazy have a right to call you crazy.
…then kindly keep it out of the public classroom (re: Creationists).
Did you read the article she wrote and I linked? I figure that if you won’t take what I say at face value, maybe you will listen to MM.
Old enough to know that birthers and creationists are lunatics.
Cheapseat:
Are you serious? OK, firstly, Austrailia was LONG separated before human beings ever arose. We all came from the same stock, central African proto-humans probably, and migrated all over the world. The differences in race are due to genetic drift and environmental pressures. We didn’t evolve from different monkeys, that is just plain wrong. If you are going to be a part of this discussion at least please try and understand what you are talking about first, OK?
Happyscrapper:
..only to people like you and cheapseat who obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Zero…So, I “obviously” don’t have a clue as what I’m talking about, I am a lunatic for my beliefs, I am crazy…etc. Every time you hijack a thread and post your diatribes and insults, you end up showing what a pathetic, argumentative, nasty twerp you really are. You can insult us all you want, that is your right. We don’t have to like you or engage you. Ever wonder why there are only 2 or 3 people on these threads that even tolerate you?I keep kicking myself for falling into that trap. I will definitely try not to do that any more after this.
happyscrapper:
You seemed to think cheapseat had a point. His comment was plainly wrong and ignorant of the theory he is criticizing. Therefore, it follows that you didn’t understand why he was wrong.
In another thread I think we established that you believe god used evolution as the method to create humans. That said, you are not a lunatic on that front.
I’m sorry, but I will not tolerate fools who try and hi-jack the conservative movement.
Oh? Careful there, you wouldn’t want to sink to my level. In any case, spare me this nonsense. It’s quite clear the problem you have with me is that I consistently point out your ignorance. I am sorry, but I’m only trying to help.
…and yet you continue, without fail, to do so.
I could care less, in fact the lunatics aren’t my audience really. No doubt there are plenty of lurkers.
Whatever you say.
zeroangel…your username should be changed to “threadkiller”. Nice.
happyscrapper:
Oh? It’s my fault now is it? Moonsbreath and yourself cultivated this little segway into stupidity.
“Threadkiller” fits you just fine; either that or Sybil. I prefer the latter.
As for MM’s position on “birthers”, you missed “a dangerously large segment of” her column. MM was referring to the segment that supported Philip Berg’s lawsuit. That has nothing to do with what I posted about, which is whether or not Obama is a “natural born citizen.” If you take the time to dig up quotes for support, be thoughtful enough to post a link.
As for creationists, you won’t cite Bible verses, but you will cite Darwin — yet you claim to be “concerned with the truth”… very funny, thanks for engaging in the search for the truth.
Dave Turson:
I am aware of what both MM and yourself said. MM says:
…I agree, there may be, and it wouldn’t be the first time this question came up. If it needs to be clarified, it should, however, it’s certainly not going to result in removing Obama from office which is what the birthers are clamoring for. If the show fits, wear it, if not… well, notice I haven’t accused you of being a birther.
Are you kidding? Do you regularly consult scripture when trying to understand quantum physics? How about when building a suspension bridge, do you go with modern engineering or the Bible? To compare modern evolutionary theory (which started, not finished with Darwin) to a 2000 year old text is ridiculous in the extreme.
*if the shoe fits. Sorry.
Dave:
I DID link it, see post #100.
Here’s is my take on Maher. Other than the occasional blog reference, does anyone quote this intellectual light weight?” Not really, right? He wants the attention, just like when he was sitting in the back of the class in junior high and smarting off to the teacher. Lots of yucks from the morons, groans from the people with brains.
No.
You should have reposted the link as you were addressing me for the first time — I cannot read everything you post on other pages.
Dave:
I should not have to. If you are going to jump in on the middle of a conversation and take issue with something I said to another poster then you should be the one to go back and reread to fully understand my position.
In any case, what is the relevance of the Bible passage you cited? Is that the section you use when building a suspension bridge or understanding wave-particle duality? What other ancient texts do you consult on these matters? Why is the Bible given special authority WRT evolution?
I did not “take issue with something [you] said to another poster…”
Dave Turson:
You didn’t? Forgive me then. It seemed like you did so here in #129:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/02/when-they-cant-attack-the-message/comment-page-2/#comment-763772
You quoted my message to another poster and then formed your own response. In your response you seemed to indicate that some “birthers” have a legitimate claim and that you do not believe in evolution.
Am I wrong?
I can let you slide for making definitive statements about theories which are by no means definitive (despite the fact that it makes you appear less scientific).
I can also let you slide for aggressively defending your definitive statements.
But I can’t let you slide for constantly ridiculing people that disagree with your definitive statements.
Yes. On the left “birthers” is a term for anyone questioning Obama eligibility to be president because of circumstances surrounding his birth. I did not mention what anyone else had posted — only the issues of birthers and creationists in general.
corkie:
Sorry, the idea that human beings evolved via convergent evolution is wrong. That much is definitive. Please post your peer-reviewed paper claiming otherwise. Even if you manage that, I’ll no doubt find other papers laden with evidence that will debunk it.
Fair enough, I could be a tiny bit more tolerant to those folks that aren’t as well educated on the topic. I’ll try and be more patient. It is entirely possible cheapseat was legitimately trying to understand as opposed to attempting to ridicule something he doesn’t understand.
Dave:
Anyone who seriously thinks that Obama will be ousted from office over some question regarding his eligibility is indeed engaging in absurd, wishful thinking.
The whole if the US government accepts this as absurd. Sorry.
Anyhow, I’m sorry you did say you do not believe that human beings are related to monkeys. It seems to me you are a creationist, am I wrong?
Zero, you can take me for my words … I will not go in wordy circles.
corkie:
Also, Australia split some tens of millions of years before human beings were on the scene, cheapseat was very clearly wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangea#Rifting_and_break-up
You’re missing the point. YOU are the one making absolute statements. First, YOU post peer reviewed papers which draw definitive conclusions about this topic. Second, YOU defend those definitive statements.
Do not, I repeat, do not ridicule others for disagreeing with those definitive conclusions. And don’t compare this topic to a flat earth theory. It’s stupid to imply that it’s not more complicated than that.
Again, you missed the point. Think about how foolish someone must now feel for belittling those not educated enough to believe that Pluto was a planet 10 years ago.
Here I thought the topic was on Bill Maher’s ad hominem attacks without discussing any points in Michelle’s book.
I must have missed the clever subtext that made this all about evolution.
I wasn’t defending cheapseat’s claims. I was pushing back on some of your overly definitive claims. And many are quite overly definitive.
Why? He certainly could be ousted from office in Jan 2013 “over” this.
corkie:
Cheapseat thinks human beings coevolved from different monkeys that were seperated via continetal drift.
This is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to begin, I’ll try though.
The continents were more or less in their present form long before even anything resembling a human came to being. In a very general sense, the continents started breaking up in the time of the dinosaurs, and were more or less broken up completely by the time mammals got their start.
Further, there is no evidence of convergent evolution. None. All the evidence points to homo sapiens coming from all the same stock. Mitochondrial Eve (often mentioned on this site misunderstood to support creationism, which it doesn’t) supports this, among others.
It is that definitive, and it is comparable to flat Earth theory. Sorry.
Umm, what? That’s a matter of naming conventions, not facts. Pluto is still the same size and composition as it always has been. This is a poor analogy.
cheapseat is definitively wrong, as above. Sorry.
Fair enough, but that’s clearly not what I meant.
Salt:
Moonsbreath brought it up. She was complaining about fellow conservatives calling out the stupidity that goes on within the movement.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/23/the-dont-taze-me-bro-moment-of-henry-louis-gates/comment-page-44/#comments
…let’s continue this in monster thread. My following replies will be there.
corkie, Dave, et al.:
In the interest in avioding these off-topic posts, please post any following replies on the topic of birthers and creationists in monster thread, as above.
Thank you.
No, it’s not. You just lost credibility.
Hello? I already explained this. Start by providing the peer reviewed papers which draw definitive conclusions, THEN defend them.
But that might be the intent of many “birthers.”
You’re better off compelling them to redirect their efforts.
Your apology is accepted.
He’s only been in office 6 months.
BWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
It is usually customary for a newbie to be on good behavior during the initial phase of any undertaking — a new job, a new relationship, whatever.
Then, as some accomplishments happen and the situation becomes more established over time, cheaters and liars start taking liberties, cutting corners, and essentially cheating and lying as cheaters and liars are wont to do, hoping no one will notice until they scoot from the scene.
Here we have THE ZERO — an ace cheater and liar — exhibiting BAD behavior from the get-go. Is Maher trying to imply that said behavior will improve after he’s been in office longer?
What a putz!!!
The Almighty’s recent time-killing diversion, whereby he bemusedly saught to discover who is the most toxic piece of feculant sludge walking the planet — Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher — is getting to the point where it’s driving even Him crazy!
corkie et al.:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/23/the-dont-taze-me-bro-moment-of-henry-louis-gates/comment-page-44/#comment-764128
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/23/the-dont-taze-me-bro-moment-of-henry-louis-gates/comment-page-44/#comment-764137
…all other replies will be there.
Salt, just another thread hi-jacked by a left wing zealot after rubbing a few conservative posters the wrong way. There must be great satisfaction in ruining a thread…since we benefit from it.
I sincerely apologize for “hi-jacking” this thread. I’ll be sure to pay more attention to that in the near future. Perhaps the two of you could go around checking threads and reminding people to stay on topic. In fact, the topic on Rahm yesterday for strong-arming tv execs have several posters hi-jacking that thread. I’m sure they’ll thank you too for reprimanding them.
Zeroangel, you’re just a little snitch aren’t you?