Thursday, August 11, 2016

Crown Forum Publicity Office alerted by e-mail
of alleged plagiarism by “author” Michelle Fields

Below is the verbatim e-mail I sent to Crown Forum’s publicity office* at Random House [] on Wednesday, August 10, 2016:

SUBJECT: Likely plagiarism by Crown author in form of “refactoring”

To the publisher of “Barons of the Beltway: Inside the Princely World of Our Washington Elite—and How to Overthrow Them”

Dear Sir or Madam:

In case you have not yet been alerted, serious allegations of plagiarism — in the form of the refactoring of others’ work without citations, in lieu of original work of her own — are being made on the Internet about the Michelle Fields book referenced above, which Crown Forum published and continues to market.

As a writer myself, I find this extremely offensive, as I know how difficult and laborious it is to originate good work, and even harder to get it published. When word of this gets out to your other authors, and it will, I can assure you they will not take this lightly. If true, as Crown Forum authors, their work and reputations will be diminished by their association with a publisher of plagiarism. If it is true, I hope Crown Forum will recall the book immediately and refund all purchases, regardless of how few copies have been sold.

To my best knowledge, this discovery was made, and news of it first published, by attorney Travis Miller, attorney Mike Cernovich of, and Charles C. Johnson, CEO of, two of whom are copied on this e-mail.

The evidence given of this alleged fraud (see links below) include numerous samples of Fields’ work side-by-side with the work of others.

As you will see, the samples do not show lengthy, wholesale “word for word” copying, but rather highly suspicious re-writing of the samples that strongly suggest:
  1. Fields did not originate the ideas in her passages;
  2. Fields is not conversant in the subjects she is writing about;
  3. Fields found passages written by others with the same ideas and often identical phrasing; and
  4. Fields merely re-factored these passages by restating others’ phrases using different words, but not enough to cover her tracks and hide her plagiarism;
  5. Fields passed off the work as her own, without credit to others.
I myself found such a passage on my first attempt. At, I found her book, clicked on “Look Inside” and “Surprise Me” to find random pages. I Googled phases from the first paragraph I found and discovered a paragraph in a Wikipedia article that was very similar, and included several of the same ideas and phrases in the same short passage.

Further evidence that Fields did not truly “author” this work is her complete lack of knowledge of her book when confronted on television by Steve Malzberg (view here:

I hope you will take these allegations seriously, and forward this e-mail to the appropriate officers and staff of your company, as independent associates and researchers of this story will surely be contacting board members, senior staff, and Crown Forum authors, and publicizing this story widely on social media, including news of Crown’s response to these allegations.

Thank you for your attention. You may contact me by reply e-mail.


Paul Klenk
[e-mail address redacted]


cc: Michael Cernovich, Charles C. Johnson

* Author’s note: This alert was sent to, an address widely published at official current Crown Forum and Random House Web sites and press releases. Delivery failed to that account. The e-mail to the address was sent successfully.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

What’s next for Citizen Zimmerman:
The Bad News and the Good News

Today, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey put into motion a seemingly baseless, unjust prosecution of an innocent man, or at best a very flimsy and unnecessary legal case, purely in response to pressure from an angry mob. And today, George Zimmerman learned that he has a grave fight ahead of him. This is all because the accused was unselfishly helping the police protect a neighborhood with a history of burglaries. He was, he claims, attacked by Trayvon Martin, a suspicious young man with an arguably thuggish personality, who was once found with a utterly suspicious cache of jewelry and a burglary tool which he himself admitted were not his own. George Zimmerman’s crime, it seems, was defending himself against serious injury or death, using a legal weapon and deadly force, in accordance with the law.

The bad news for George Zimmerman is not just that he has been charged with second degree murder today. It is also bad news for him that the person pressing the charges, Angela Corey, stated the following:
“Remember, it is Trayvon’s family who are our Constitutional victims.”
With this sort of mindset, it is hard to take Corey seriously as a justice-minded prosecutor.

Corey’s statement just isn’t true legally unless Zimmerman is found guilty; in fact, if Trayvon was attacking Zimmerman as claimed, Trayvon isn’t a victim, either. Remember: If, and only if, Zimmerman committed a crime, the victim would first and foremost be Trayvon, “constitutionally.” Corey’s statement signals that she took the steps she took not on behalf of Florida’s law and its citizens, but on behalf of the (possibly unwitting) family, its band of merry (witting) race-baiting, riot-inciting rabble-rousers, Sharpton and Jackson, and the easily aroused mob that is influenced by them.

Corey appears to be bowing to public pressure, notwithstanding her assertions to the contrary, which no prosecutor should have to make. If her case is compelling, it will stand on its own when presented to a judge. If it isn’t, no smiling assertion in a press conference can change that. In no circumstance should such a press conference be necessary, except to briefly relay the barest of facts.

It is also telling that Corey requested the public pray for Trayvon’s family, and for her team, but not for Zimmerman. If Trayvon was the attacker and Zimmerman the innocent defender, I would still ask (and do ask) everyone to pray for all parties. Why is the accused not worthy of our prayers?

None of this is good news for Zimmerman.

What is good news is that the legal process which Corey set in motion now shifts in favor of Zimmerman.

I base this on what looks like a well-researched, useful article at CNN breaking down the steps in the legal process, a process which will end in dismissal, acquittal, or conviction. (Please allow me a huge asterisk here; I am a lay person and not in a position to evaluate the work of Beth Karas and Jessica Thrill. Your informed comments or criticisms are welcome.)

Unless there is a bombshell that has been kept completely secret from the public, Zimmerman is in good shape when a judge looks at the charges and the defense asks for a dismissal (if the judge has more than half a brain, and one eye open). There are one or two main challenges ahead:

Challenge #1: Get the charges dismissed. If successful, George goes free.

To get the charges dismissed, the defense has the burden to prove (based on a preponderance of the evidence) in a pre-trial evidentiary hearing that Zimmerman is immune from those charges based on Stand Your Ground.

This means it must prove all three of the following to be true:
  • Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity.
  • Zimmerman was attacked in a place he had a right to be.
  • Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life and safety were in danger.
This strikes my lay mind as a bit tricky. #2 is a piece of cake; of course he had the right to be there. #1 seems problematic, because the defense is asked to prove a negative. “Okay, George, prove you weren’t engaged in an unlawful activity, or the trial will move ahead.” Maybe this will be extremely easy; that is, perhaps the prosecution must claim a specific unlawful activity first. And #3 should not be so very hard. He was getting pummeled in his head, a vital part of his body without which he could not live or function. But not knowing as much about past Stand Your Ground cases as I’d like to, I can only speculate.

If the defense fails to get a dismissal, it moves on to:

Challenge #2: Defend George against the charge of second degree manslaughter.

To me, this would actually seem easier (or at least as easy) for the defense, because the burden of proof moves to the prosecution. Of course I’d rather see the charges dismissed. It would be better for everyone. If they are not, there will be a lot of hand-wringing by concerned Zimmerman supporters. (Based on everything that is being claimed by both sides, at this point I consider myself a supporter.)

From the CNN article:
“Florida law describes murder in the second degree as an act that is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
  • a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another,
  • and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent,
  • and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”
Here the prosecution has a seemingly insurmountable burden, one which, if Corey had her head screwed on right, she would not have undertaken.

Of course it is imminently dangerous to shoot another person. That’s a no-brainer. But how do you prove that Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, demonstated a depraved mind? Well, without the aforementioned bombshell, you don’t.

After you prove his depraved mind, you still have a another three facts to prove (note the “and” after the first and second bullets). Again, it is easy to prove that a reasonable person would know that to shoot someone is certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to them. But Zimmerman must be proved to have done this from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and that he was indifferent about it.

In summary: The prosecution’s challenge is to prove the following to be true beyond a reasonable doubt: Zimmerman demonstrated a depraved mind, AND he did it from ill will or hatred, AND he was indifferent to Trayvon’s life.

All three. Let’s see how they intend to do this.

Today, Trayvon’s grieving mother, Sybryna Fulton, said with a broken heart that all she ever wanted was an arrest. Well, every indication is that she has been granted her wish.

But if Zimmerman is found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed, will Fulton let it rest? Or will she amend her wish to include both an arrest and a conviction? If the justice system gives her an outcome she doesn’t like, will she proclaim an injustice? With Sharpton at her side, the latter is more likely, but only time will tell. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but since she is hanging out with Sharpton, I just can’t swing that. She’s clearly a smart lady and should know better. All I can give her is my heartfelt sympathy. That is something she deserves.

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Someone tell Ann Coulter it’s now official:
‘Demonic’ spelled backwards is ‘Democrats’

Ann Coulter’s illuminating new bestseller, Demonic, is
opening the eyes of many conservatives, while causing
the Democratic mob to gnash its teeth.
A few years ago, I stumbled on an amusing domain name: It’s ‘Illuminati’ spelled backwards — you know, the same Illuminati that has infiltrated the deepest levels of our government, gathers information on everyone, secretly runs the world, and plants microchips in our teeth. The same Illuminati which is building bunkers where its powerful and wealthy members plan to ride out any danger of radiation when the world comes to an end, while breeding and slaughtering animals, and undertaking the regrettable task of performing prodigious acts of sacrificial (ahem) service in their safe and highly stimulating new environment.

If you want to freak out your conspiracy theorist friends, or just amuse your normal friends, tell them to spell Illuminati backwards, and a ‘.com’ to the end of it, and see where it takes them. (It points to, the official Web site for the National Security Agency and the Central Security Service of the United States. The domain is owned by one John Fenley of Provo, Utah, who registered it with and just forwarded it to

Which brings me to Ann Coulter’s brilliant new book, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America (Crown Forum / Random House).

If you haven’t read it, place a bookmark in whatever you’re now reading, buy a copy of Ann’s book, and finish it before the weekend is over. Demonic is a spectacularly researched eye-opener, and its chapters on the French Revolution, followed by her singularly penetrating comparative analysis of the American Revolution, are alone worth the price.

When Ann began promoting Demonic months ago, she teased us with the promise that she had unlocked the ultimate secret to understanding the fundamental nature of the liberal personality. She wouldn’t say exactly how at the time, but we learned how once the book hit the shelves: Liberals are a violent, unthinking mob. They feel, think, act, and respond like a mob, and when you understand this, you can unravel just about any liberal conspiracy, hoax, phony claim, catch phrase, bumper sticker, or campaign slogan, and watch it crumble into dust in your hands.

I still have a third of the book to go, so I’m hoping that in the final chapters Ann will also give us the solution to neutralizing the mob and overcoming it when it becomes dangerous. Okay, she’s already hinted at this early in the book: Respond with decisive (and if necessary, deadly) force, and watch the violent cowards fold.

Once you’ve fully absorbed the book, try out Ann’s nifty code-breaker on any liberal or progressive pamphlet, meme, or news story they’re flogging. You’ll be amazed how quickly you will learn to see through their transparent and utterly baseless claims. It will change the way you think about and respond to them; it sure has helped me.

So, as a tribute to Ann and her magnum opus, the domain name (demonic spelled backwards) now points to, the official Web site of the DNC. Type it in your browser and test it for yourself.

The next time you want to freak out your crazy liberal friends, tell them to spell ‘Demonic’ backwards, add a ‘.com’ to it, and see where it leads.

(And if you know how to reach Ann, would you kindly send this message to her as well? I’m sure it would make her smile.)

Friday, April 29, 2011

Donald Trump, “Death Dodger,” avoids war service
by — gasp! — common, legal, and honest methods

 see update at end of thread

Snarky nay-sayers to Trump:
Why didn’t you drop dead?
Donald Trump, we are learning today, sought student and medical deferments during the Vietnam war, according Selective Service records obtained by the Web site The Smoking Gun. He received the deferments before his draft number came up.

He got student deferments, allowing him to complete his education, and was later disqualified for medical reasons; by the time his number came up, he wasn’t required to serve.

Somehow this is supposed to be a big deal.

Nowhere in the story is it asserted that he lied or stretched the truth to avoid service. Neither does it say any doctor lied about his health, or that he really wasn’t in school when he said he was. Nor is it claimed Trump, his family, or his friends used any sort of influence to help him. No illegal or irregular actions by Trump the student are claimed. Only that he got deferments, which are legal.

The worst The Smoking Gun can come up with is a sin of omission, decades after the war: “[t]he word “deferment” was not mentioned by Trump during his chat...” in a TV interview Tuesday on WNYW. The story doesn’t come right out and claim that he lied; such a statement wouldn’t hold up. But by innuendo, and even by the very words “smoking gun,” they are trying to play a game of gotcha. If a gun is smoking, doesn’t that mean a crime (or lie) occurred?

The real failed attempt to paint Trump as a liar is as follows: Trump says that, while at Wharton, he was watching as they did the draft numbers and he got a very high number they never got to. But, cluck his critics, they did get to his number eventually — eighteen months after he left Wharton. See? He’s lying!

This accusation is flimsy when you actually look at it. Read Trump’s statement carefully: He said he was at Wharton watching when his number did not come up. That is the truth. His number never came up while he was at Wharton.

There’s nothing here, children. No improper deferments decades ago, no lies about it today.

I found it interesting that no byline appears over the story at TSG; whatever is proven or not proven about the piece, no single person can be blamed. I called TSG this afternoon to ask who wrote it, and learned from Managing Editor Andrew Goldberg, who answered the phone, that in fact all four staff members — himself, Willliam Bastone, Joseph Jesselli, and Miranda Lin — wrote and contributed to the piece; he said this is the practice for all pieces on the site. Goldberg was forthcoming enough with this information (I did have to persist a bit), and he was a bit frustrated that I did not tell him exactly where I was headed with my inquiry (after his repeated questioning, I told him I was writing a commentary, and gave him the name of this Web site).

Goldberg gave the impression that I should have ascertained authorship by reading TSG’s About page. It was already open in my browser when I phoned, but based on the information on the page, one could only make assumptions about who wrote any given piece. Under the heading Staff, the page includes names of two editors (himself and Bastone) and two reporters (Jesselli and Lin). I think it’s admirable that TSG hangs its reputation on its whole team, but perhaps a clarification about authorship of all articles would be in order.

Authorship is, perhaps, a side issue; either all four worked together to frame a false narrative to go with their Selective Service information, or one person came up with the “dodge” and “obfuscate” angles and we’re not being told who. My guess is, one person came up with the angle, and the other three jumped in gleefully. Either way, the deferments are a non-issue, and Trumps’s statement Tuesday is being puffed up into something it isn’t.

The heart of the story being fed to us, and echoed thoughtlessly, is that Trump avoided the draft. What about that?

Our country provided men of draft age with the opportunity to avoid service in Vietnam using respectful, honorable, and completely legal means. George Bush served honorably in the Guard, and John Kerry served dishonorably, lying about it afterwards, thus rightfully losing his grab for power. (And, thankfully, this prevented the equally repugnant John Edwards from joining him in the White House.)

Donald Trump did not serve in Vietnam. Is there something shameful about that? Of course not. And no stories we are being fed provide evidence he did anything dishonest then or now.

I for one am glad that Trump did not die in Vietnam. Is that wrong of me? Can’t we be glad that he obeyed the law, got a first-class education, dodged injury or, worse, a cruel death, and built a company that actually makes something and employs thousands? Obama (peace be on him) cannot claim to have done anything close to this. He went to school, he worked at Baskin-Robbins, he sat at the feet of America-haters and even a terrorist, and he agitated his way into state office, the U.S. Senate, and the Oval Office. But he has never run a company, has never made payroll, has never offered a product to the public (besides anger and resentment disguised as hope and change), and has never come through on his many grand campaign promises. He has not been open and transparent (an easy task) and he has not subdued the oceans (a messianic feat). He has turned out to be a phony, in every real sense of the word.

It is typical of many on the left to denounce the horrible Vietnam war, rewrite its history, praise anyone who protested it, and denounce anyone in leadership who contributed to it — while employing a double standard by accusing those that oppose them of being draft dodgers. Creepy John Kerry went further, shaming the men he served with and our country in general, claiming that atrocities he described were “not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command...”

In other words, even if Trump had served, he would have been guilty of war crimes.

UPDATE: 7:02 PM | I just found my own smoking gun; even I can miss a lie when it’s in plain sight. This one is in the very first line of The Smoking Gun’s story. Do you notice the word “solely” in that sentence? “Despite Donald Trump’s claim this week that he avoided serving in the Vietnam War solely due to a high draft number...”

When did Trump ever claim that he avoided military service solely due to a high draft number?

The Smoking Gun gets caught in a lie,
providing critics a smoking gun of their own.
The fact is, he never did. I listened to the entire interview carefully. The Smoking Gun lied. All four of them, evidently.

Listen, you fools at The Smoking Gun: When you play gotcha on word-play and falsely accuse people of lying, you yourselves will get caught lying and will be exposed for the amateur deceivers you are.

Readers, are you beginning to see what lengths people will go to when truth is not really their agenda? When they’re scrambling to shovel us shit and call it sugar, in the name of journalism? Shame on The Smoking Gun, but let’s thank them for giving us a smoking gun of our own. Next time, let’s all be careful about jumping on a story just because our chains are being yanked by these clowns.

Hey, I’m not even a big fan of the Donald. I’m not happy about his lack of conservative bone fides, and I’m not sure he could be a good commander-in-chief. But I’m not standing by and watching a bunch of Dumpster divers set fires and then yell, “Smoke!”

Now, let’s hope they have the decency to publish a correction.

Thursday, April 28, 2011

With clever use of stickers, Jerome Corsi revises
title and cover of “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

Click image to view full size
With lightning speed, author Jerome Corsi responded Wednesday to new market realities by smartly revising the title and cover design of his new book, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” His inspiration was President Obama’s public release of his birth certificate.

Unfortunately, since the book has already gone to press, Corsi had to resort to stickers to accomplish this before its May 17 publication.

By exing out the ‘W’ of Where’s, and placing a red exclamation point sticker over the question mark in the title, he kept pace with current events by changing the book’s title to the more triumphant “Here’s the Birth Certificate!” The word ‘not’ in the subtitle has been covered with a smiley face sticker, reversing its meaning, and conveying the joy millions are feeling now that the birth question is a non-issue.

The best news for readers is the book’s new low price, $2.59, which is 90% below retail. This, too, required a sticker.

The final addition to his hardcover edition will be a copy of the birth certificate folded and inserted inside the back cover, for the benefit of people without access to the Internet or television.

By taking these measures, the economically savvy Corsi demonstrated that he knows how to avoid having a book remaindered even before it hits bookshelves: Market it as satire.

The big problem, critics are pointing out, is the body of the work. Corsi dismissed this by pointing out that no one actually reads such books anyway.

Authors and publishers across America are praising Corsi for his cleverness, and for opening up the floodgates for their new books that focus on Obama’s failed policies, ineptness, laziness, deceit, disdain for America, and the long-term damage he is causing the country.

Corsi continued to observe his “quiet period” at home today by frantically placing stickers on book jackets, and making public statements at World Net Daily and on his Facebook page.

Thursday, April 21, 2011

DEMOTIVATION: Is Barack Obama a lesson
in sheer vacuity of Aristotelian proportions?

Hat tip to Radio Patriot Andrew Shea-King for inspiring me with her quote from Aristotle:

Beware: Today’s pinhead is tomorrow’s petty dictator.

Thursday, April 07, 2011

PHOTO: Barack Obama, peace be on him,
indulges in ribs for our vicarious enjoyment

The fine art of demotivation: While your wife lectures the public on eating its vegetables, sit next to one and let him watch you stuff your face with meat.