Loud Citizen

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

2011-07-27T16:01:00.000-04:00

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: itanimulli.com. 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 NSA.gov, 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 GoDaddy.com and just forwarded it to http://www.nsa.gov.)

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 cinomed.com (demonic spelled backwards) now points to Democrats.org, 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.)

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

2011-04-29T17:09:00.018-04:00

7:02 PM April 29 | “THE SMOKING GUN” LIES ABOUT
TRUMP’S STATEMENT: 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?

Anyone?

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.

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

2011-04-28T00:33:00.014-04:00

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.

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

2011-04-21T08:41:00.013-04:00

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.

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

2011-04-07T08:06:00.003-04:00

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.

CARTOON: Barack Obama, peace be on him, impatiently moves forward with his wife’s agenda.

2011-02-15T14:44:00.005-05:00

Michelle Obama’s new “Let’s Move!” campaign gives her husband an exciting new idea.

Web searchers ask, “How did Joshua Goldberg die?”while countless blog tributes reveal how he lived

2011-02-13T23:44:00.013-05:00

Readers grieve for Josh with tributes, prayers, and questions

You may be interested to learn that Web site publishers can see the key words you enter in your Google searches that link you to us. Since yesterday, site visits from all 50 states and over 20 foreign countries reveal that you are wondering, “How did Joshua Goldberg die?”
In response to your unspoken inquiries, I can only tell you that he sustained fatal injuries in a fall; no other specifics have been made public. The major New York and Washington newspapers have not even mentioned his death on their Web sites, and none of the many blog tributes published in the last day contain new information. (I do not know the family, and have made no attempt to contact them.)

Joshua John Zalman
Goldberg (1967-2011)
was laid to rest today by his family.

Note that Joshua’s many admirers are not speculating about his death online; nor do I intend to. They are mourning his loss, and offering warm and generous tributes, but are also simply wondering how he died as they grieve. Again, we know very little, so we will have to wait patiently and let the family share further details in their own time, as they are able.

What do we know? Since the initial announcement by his mother yesterday, Saturday, February 12, we have learned that Josh passed away two days previously, on Thursday, February 10. His brother Jonah informed us that Josh was injured “a few days” before his death and remained in the hospital until the end. Give or take a day, that would date the fall most likely on Monday, February 7 — possibly a day before or after. No doubt since that terrible event, the family’s primary occupation has been caring for Josh and each other, and making arrangements for today’s burial.

Further, Jonah has informed us that the fall was accidental. His mother, Lucianne Goldberg, had already reassured us that Josh did not suffer, which is a comfort to everyone. That’s the best update I can provide right now.

Curiosity aside, it is gratifying to read the many online tributes which focus not on how Josh died, but how he lived. His run for City Council, his work at Ground Zero, and his countless patient e-mails to users and Lbloggers at BLL are well documented by the many who loved him. Rather than summarize these accounts, I thought I’d link to as many as I can find, and let you read for yourselves about this young man’s intelligence, humility, enterprising nature, passion for good government, and unfailing graciousness towards others. It is clear by reading them that they are genuine, and paint a consistent portrait of Josh. Feel free to send me links to your own or others’ tributes for inclusion here.

Lucianne Goldberg, TheConnection.Lucianne.com | Jonah Goldberg, National Review | Thomas Lifson, American Thinker | Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress | Jeff Dunetz, Yid with Lid | John Podhoretz, Commentary | Lorie Byrd, LorieByrd.com | Bookworm Room: Joshua Goldberg, RIP; Friendships in a Cyber Age | Andrea Shea-King, The Radio Patriot | Terresa Monroe-Hamilton, Noisy Room | Rick, Brutally Honest | Walt, The Damn Dirty Rino | E.R. White, Practical State | Patrick, Political Byline | Richard L. Kent, The Michigan Silverback | Rick, Wizbang | Craig McLaughlin, Ricochet | Joe Dan Gorman, Boiling the Frogs |

Lastly, I include a video of cantor Simon Cohen’s magnificent performance of “Hallelu Avdie” from the Seder Vilna, recorded live with choir and orchestra in Tel Aviv, Israel. It was shared today by the staff of Lcom, with this statement:

“In a search for appropriate music for this, the day of Joshua’s burial, all we could find was tragic, heavy, depressing prayers for the dead. We thought this was more appropriate and more like Josh, uplifting, beautiful and full of life. Good bye, Joshua. We loved you so.”

Your comments are welcome below. In lieu of flowers, kindly consider a donation to Lucianne.com Media, Inc., which provides Lucianne.com, TheConnection, and BlogsLucianneLoves.com to its readers and posters at no charge.

(This article is a follow up to Saturday’s post, Joshua Goldberg, a “Johnny Appleseed for conservative American blogs,” dies at 43.)

Joshua Goldberg, a “Johnny Appleseed for conservative American blogs,” dies at 43

2011-02-12T18:45:00.009-05:00

Joshua J. Goldberg (1967-2011) quietly played nurseryman to scores of talented writers and citizen reporters. He gave us a rich soil to plant our blogs, then watered and weeded BlogsLucianneLoves.com (BLL) until our sites sprouted roots and branches, and blossomed with fruit. Josh was a Johnny Appleseed for conservative American blogs. His tragic death was reported today.

John Chapman, a.k.a. Johnny Appleseed, did not, as many people believe, plant apple trees by tossing seeds hither and yon. He actually started nurseries where sapling apple trees were nurtured until they could be sold to people who wanted to grow their own orchards. In other words, he did not merely plant apple trees; he planted apple growers.

Likewise, Joshua Goldberg did not create blogs; he helped others establish their own little hothouses, and invited the best of them to aggregate into his large network of regular readers, who range from average Mom and Pop America to the media elite of New York and Washington. By giving us a home and his confidence, Goldberg spurred many of us bloggers (or “Lbloggers”) to write our best material, publish more frequently, and delve more aggressively into issues and new stories using standard reporting techniques. He helped us build our own large readerships by letting us cross-post our work to his family's sites, where he was Managing Editor, and link to our own — at no charge.

Josh’s idea of a model blog story was “enterprising” and “newsy” (his words), one that not only capitalized on current events with opinion, but featured original reporting of facts not published elsewhere, and sometimes even influenced the story by attracting the attention and comments of newsmakers and media analysts.

A sudden end...

When I learned today of Goldberg's death from two of my sisters (both Ldotters), I was more than shocked; I was taken aback, startled, and bewildered. My only two sources of information, an American Thinker article and Lucianne.com, give few details of Joshua’s death. A fall injured him fatally; that is all we know.

I imagine he must have died today or yesterday. But we heard nothing of an accident before, so I can only speculate that his death followed almost immediately on his fall. Selfishly, I want to know more: When was the fall? What were the circumstances? What day did he die? The absence of details is unsettling. Writer E.R. White, in his tribute today, reminded us that the family would find even e-mails overwhelming, let alone inquiries; all I can do is be patient.

Lucianne Goldberg, her son Jonah, Joshua’s wife Chantal, and their families must be utterly wrenched with grief and pain at this time. You cannot prepare for a death like this. I wish I knew how to help them. I can pray for them, and pledge to continue supporting the amazing BLL. The fate of a Web site cannot be compared to a human life, especially a vibrant young one such as Josh’s. But my continuing selfish bent at this moment is to worry about BLL’s fate now that he is not around to care for it. My only comfort is the certainty that Lucianne and her staff have the character and support network needed to keep things running.

When Josh gave me and many of you “Lbloggers” posting privileges at BlogsLucianneLoves, he gave us a larger soapbox than we could ever have built on our own. We suddenly found our blogs being quoted by major newspapers and media sites, and saw our readerships skyrocket. Our fans came from Everytown, America — all 50 states, mostly small towns. Lakeville, MN; Newark, OH; Littleton, CO; Gilbert, AZ; Centreville, MD; Fort Bragg, NC; Huntsville, AL; Roselle, IL — they all showed up in our stat counters, along with visitors from Tranås, Sweden; Kanata, Ontario; Dubai, UAE; San José, Costa Rica; Dijon, France; and Nottoden, Norway. We watched our hit counters rise the moment we cross-posted at BLL, and much more so if we were featured as a must-read there or at Lucianne.com. And when our stories hit a nerve, we noticed a particular spike in readers from New York City and Washington media companies. I was thunderstruck when one of my early items attracted visits from servers with IP addresses in the White House (www.eop.gov), the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the Department of Justice, and the State Department.

I should not be speaking of these things in the past tense. We can and will continue to build our blogs and BLL, and there is no reason we cannot see even greater success if we simply follow Josh’s model, concentrate on facts, make phone calls, track down reporters in their newsrooms, and accurately and honestly report on everything that is said and done. We are the media. Most reporters will talk to you if you get to the point and do not waste their time. If they shy away or utterly refuse to acknowledge you, do not be surprised if later they call you back and request to go on the record after your story hits (it has happened to me). We can cover anything (and anyone) we want to. People are gluttons for attention, even (or especially) reporters, and once you get them talking, your stories will write themselves.

The beginning of BLL...

When Joshua first launched BlogsLucianneLoves.com, I contacted him about the very long domain name he and the family had chosen. I constantly check the availability of short, snappy phrases as domains. Readers of Lucianne.com, the mother site of BLL, refer to themselves “Ldotters,” so the word “Lbloggers” sprang to my mind, and since the domain Lbloggers.com was available, I presented the idea to Joshua. He loved it:

“I can’t believe I didn't think of that! Thank you. We spent days playing with all sorts of names from the clever to asinine. I am bringing this up with the rest of the Goldberg Family Band.” — e-mail from Josh, Dec. 6, 2009

Josh was my first editor. Although I have published short items at The New York Times at the pleasure of editor Michael Pollack, Joshua was really the first editor to carve out a home for me, guide me, and establish a clear framework and focus for my writing.

Our responsibility as bloggers should be to treat our blogs as Josh did: nurseries where other blogs can thrive. When you notice friends who are exceptional writers, encourage them to blog and do citizen reporting, and help them set up a free Web page and purchase a domain name to point to it. It is easy and inexpensive, it takes little time, and you will be surprised to see that sometimes these writers take off. This wise investment of your resources would be a fitting tribute to Josh.

Like John Chapman, it is likely that Joshua Goldberg’s behind-the-scenes influence is already much greater than we realize. If we continue his good work, his legacy may quietly eclipse that of the most prominent commentators, reporters, and talking heads, by producing better ones.

Thank you, Josh, for helping me to become the blogger I always wanted to be. And to Lucianne, Chantal, Jonah, and your families, please accept my deepest condolences and prayers now and during the difficult period ahead.

Reader comments are welcome.

* The original headline, in which I estimated Joshua's age, has been corrected from 44 to 43 years old, on confirmation from his younger brother Jonah in his column today (2/12/2011).

A history of creased pants and shopworn ideas for David Brooks and other trouser jockeys

2010-02-11T14:27:00.011-05:00

Today Matt Patterson takes on The New York Times’ David Brooks for his infatuation with Obama and the “limits of [Brooks’] understanding.” The jumping off point for his piece at Big Government is Brooks’ “continued fascination” with Obama’s perfectly creased pants.

So let us jump off Obama’s lap and begin this discussion with a bit of history.

You are likely not aware that trousers with creases were once sneered at. They announced to everyone that your pants were “store bought” — creased from sitting on a store shelf, a sign they were factory-made and of inferior quality. Those weren’t “creases” — they were permanent wrinkles.

Really nice clothes don’t come from a factory or off a store shelf; they are bespoke, expressly for you, by a tailor who begins with fine materials and finishes each detail with skill. Any tailor who goes out of his way to steam a permanent crease in your pants is either a poor tailor, or a tailor who is trying to appeal to the class-conscious, the nouveau riche, and people who generally don’t know a lot about clothes.

But I don’t give a tinker’s cuss about Obama’s pants. It’s his ideas I am worried about. David Brooks should be worried, too, instead of running his hands up and down the president’s leg admiringly, like some trouser jockey.

If Obama were the real thing, and not so prêt-à-porter, his clothes — and his ideas — would not show signs of being shopworn. They’d be original, not borrowed from the libraries of socialism.

And if David Brooks were a man of true intellect, and not a product of Ivy League factories, he would readily recognize both the origin and the consequences of Obama’s views. Obama is anything but an original thinker; his politics and his strategies are factory-made, lifted right out of the book. It is inexcusable for Brooks not to see this.

David Brooks may be a nice fellow, but American Thinker’s Stuart Schwartz nailed it when he labeled him an “Obama-designated conservative intellectual” and “MSNBC-anointed voice for America’s conservative masses.” Brooks is not as smart as he thinks he is. His conservative bona fides are highly suspect, and he is a perhaps a bit too class-conscious.

It has been endlessly and authoritatively documented that Obama has lifted his dangerous, un-American, and, frankly, crackpot ideas from the writings of some of the most poisonous minds in politics, like Bill Ayers, Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Jeremiah Wright, and yes, Karl Marx. His appointees and lifelong associates are all disciples of the same school of thought (if you can call it thought), and have been hand-picked by Obama or his handlers expressly for that reason.

Team Obama all shop at the same store, and drink from the same sewer. Their brains are permanently wrinkled. You can see it in their inferior ideas.

Why did a NY Daily News article on O’Keefe disappear and then reappear on its site?

2010-02-02T06:57:00.010-05:00

And why has a second false article
not been corrected or retracted?

Many reporters and news outlets have been scrambling lately to avoid a lawsuit by activist-videographer James O’Keefe. They’re issuing corrections or retractions to their published false claims that he was charged by the FBI with “bugging” and/or “wiretapping” during his recent service call to Senator Mary Landrieu’s Louisiana office. But even as the press backtracks, the slanderous statements are being widely (and wildly) repeated.

Some sources are correcting themselves voluntarily, and some after on-air haranguing and corporate reprimands. These include The Washington Post, MSNBC’s David Shuster, Talking Points Memo, CBS News, and the Associated Press.

And some are doing it… well, not at all. The N.Y. Daily News, for instance.

James Gordon Meek, a serious-looking member of the Daily News’ Washington bureau, has filed two stories about the O’Keefe arrest. He has also chortled with his colleagues about the matter on Twitter.

One of his articles states that O’Keefe was “popped by the FBI Tuesday on charges of bugging”; and that “as the bogus hardhats tried to bug an office phone, O’Keefe held up a cell phone “…so as to record Flanagan and Basel,” the FBI said.” (Emphasis mine.)

So here in one article are two instances of clear and unqualified claims by Meek of FBI bugging charges, when in fact no such charges were made, according to the widely-circulated four-page affidavit by the FBI’s Special Agent Steven Rayes and the DOJ press release Meek links to.

Meek’s article is the subject of a correction request sent by Andrew Breitbart’s Big Journalism to the Daily News, but which a lawyer for the paper denied receiving in a telephone conversation with me late Monday. (Perhaps this is because the request may have been delivered by an alpaca.)

But Meek cannot pretend ignorance of the correction request, because I tweeted him a link to it Sunday at 12:38 PM (@meekwire), and encouraged readers of Big Journalism to do the same in comments on the very page I sent him. Did he run to his lawyers with it? Or did he keep it from them? I wonder what a journalist is supposed to do in such a case.

The second Meek piece is the really curious one, the one to which this post’s headline refers to. Since both pieces are dated the same day, minutes apart, I will refer to them as the “news” article (which Breitbart & Co. complained about), and the “blog” article:

The “blog” item was published in the paper’s Washington bureau blog, “Mouth of the Potomac.” It is dated January 26, and has been appended twice in such a way that the updates appear to have been made that same day (the page is, after all, dated January 26, and no further dates appear on the page). Neither update is initialed or attributed, so one can only conclude that they were written by Meek, since they appear under his byline.

“UPDATE 2” makes reference to press reports now being disputed (but not referred to as false). But instead of squarely responding to the correction request or to O’Keefe’s dispute (something the very best papers and journalists do routinely), Meek justifies and makes excuses for his wording, without actually correcting himself or even backing away. Gee, now it seems the reports only said O’Keefe was “possibly” trying to wiretap. Of course, no such qualification was made in many of them, including Meek’s.

Read “UPDATE 2” carefully. It is not a correction, or a retraction, and it does not quote or link to Meek’s news report. It says “we wanted to clarify our reporting” but it actually does no such thing. Other articles by the Daily News requiring corrections are appended on the same page with the word “Correction” in bold type. Not so with either of Meek’s reports.

“UPDATE 2” was not, in fact, added on January 26 as the article makes it appear. A Google cache of that page, dated January 31, 2010 at 9:46 PM GMT, and which I have captured, does not include “UPDATE 2.” This proves conclusively that “UPDATE 2” was added either late Sunday, or, more likely, early Monday, February 1. Note that the first update is actually time-stamped 6:15 PM.

In other words, “UPDATE 2” only appeared after I had been goosing Meek about it via Twitter. (I’m just saying.)

Curiously, the blog article mysteriously disappeared from the paper’s Web site late Monday; the link resulted in a “Page not found” error at NYDailyNews.com. I had seconds before done a thorough screen capture and Google cache of the article, so it was quite astonishing when the link appeared to be scrubbed. I sent a cryptic tweet to Meek stating “u can scrub but u can't hide...” It may have tipped him off; an hour later, the link to the article was suddenly live again.

It gets stranger. I had never come across the blog item during several searches of the paper’s site the past two days. I only stumbled upon it following a tiny “bit.ly” URL which showed up in one of Meek’s tweets. I had been ready to swear that the blog was published late Sunday or early yesterday, and fraudulently backdated January 26. But I realized I may have been wrong.

Still, a Google search of both articles’ exact headlines (in quotes) results in this:

The offending “news” article, published January 26 at 4:47 PM:

"ACORN prankster, James O’Keefe, arrested for incident at Senator Mary Landrieu’s office" – about 433 results, linking to sites all over the Web

The non-offending “blog” article, ostensibly published January 26 at 4:08 PM:

"FBI: ACORN Gotcha Guy Busted For Buggin' Landrieu" – 1 result, the original article at the Daily News)

(Oops – did I say non-offending? Take a good look at the blog headline. “Busted For Buggin’” – get it?)

What does this Google search prove – I mean absolutely prove? Only this: Absolutely no one reads the Daily News’ “Mouth of the Potomac” blog.

Why is the slanderous news article all over the Web, and the slightly more cautious blog article virtually non-existent? For a while, I thought I had evidence that the blog piece was, in fact, published on January 31 and fictitiously backdated January 26.

Except for only one thing: I Googled the blog’s full URL (in quotes), and found exactly two results. One appeared in a tweet yesterday, and the only other appearance of that link occurred in a comment at The Atlantic, by a poster named BigRedDog. Dog makes a point of giving “NYDailyNews” credit for his scoop.

Dog’s link was posted exactly 90 minutes after the blog was published. (Now, who could have known about that blog… We know hardly anyone reads it…)

Snarkiness aside, this really isn’t about online shenanigans, or about blogs no one reads. It is about widely disseminated, but false, news reports that are easily corrected, and even more easily avoided in the first place. It is about careless gossip by people receiving salaries for playing at journalism.

Meek’s non-retraction “retraction” blog is getting no coverage on the Internet. (That might change.) But his news article, the one that is being read, tweeted, and linked to, clearly reports non-existent FBI bugging charges. It is false.

Meek did not return my voicemail or e-mail Monday, but I did catch him by phone briefly in the paper’s Washington office. I identified myself and said I was calling about his story on the O’Keefe arrest. He knew exactly who I was. He said it was a bad time, he was working on a deadline. I asked him when would be a better time to speak.

“I don’t think I ever want to get into it with you,” he said, ending the call.

I am sending him a link to this article as soon as I publish it online. I will also send it to the lawyer I spoke to.

A woman identifying herself by phone as attorney Anne Carroll from the Daily News, responded from home to a voicemail and e-mail I had left for another lawyer in her department, Dan Murphy.

She stated that she knew nothing about this and had “not received, nor has Dan Murphy, a request for a retraction.” She listened as I read out bits of the article to her, and even tried herself to find wiggle room in some of the other quotes. She then asked me for a link to the correction request, and I promised her I’d send it (but didn’t say when).

“I will take care of this tomorrow,” she said as we ended the call.

It would be (or should I say will be) interesting to know who at the Daily News received Big Journalism’s request. Breitbart’s lead on this effort, Alexander Marlowe, an associate editor for Breitbart (and sometime alpaca named “Retracto”), is racking up quite a list of news organizations to which he is writing frightfully polite and sometimes effective letters.

Let’s see if he can check one more off his list.

Watch this page for frequent live updates as they develop. Must credit Paul Klenk, LoudCitizen.org. Please excerpt and link here.

Link here using http://bit.ly/bXacjP

Direct conflict between major newspapers: Who is calling the shots on the NYC terror trial?

2010-01-28T22:33:00.049-05:00

5:53 PM January 29 | Ken Bazinet of the NY Daily News stands firm and says Scott Shane got his “butt kicked” (see end of thread). But this is much more than a tiff between reporters. Analysis follows. – p.k.

10:55 AM January 29 | Scott Shane of The New York Times says Ken Bazinet’s story in the NY Daily News “is wrong.” Read about our conversation at the bottom of this thread. – p.k.

January 29, 12:56 AM | NOTE TO READERS: I began this story to document the slowness of the Times’ coverage of a huge national story that the Daily News ran with hours before, and which was broadcast to the globe by Drudge.

However, the story has changed; it is now about a direct conflict between the Daily News’ claim that Obama “ordered” Justice to ~~change~~ consider changing the trial venue, and the New York Times’ opposing claim that “Obama left the decision” to Justice.

Therefore, I have changed the headline from “The anvil heard everywhere but The New York Times” to read “Direct conflict between major newspapers: Who is calling the shots on the NYC terror trial?”

I will continue to follow up with reporters and make live updates to this thread. The story began at 10:33 PM; updates begin directly below and continue in sequence. – p.k.

January 28, 10:33 PM | Tonight at 8:04 PM, the New York Daily News published the news that Barack Obama had ordered the Department of Justice to consider other places to hold the KSM terror trial.

It’s 10:22 PM and The New York Times still has no mention of the story. In fact, at 10:16 PM, the Times ran a brand new headline stating “Opposition to 9/11 Trial Increases in New York.”

They have phones and e-mail at the Times, so I tried them out. At 9:39 PM, I sent an e-mail to the newsroom, the tip line, and the Executive and Managing Editors. At 9:55 PM, I telephoned the newsroom and spoke to a very young-sounding man, who said they’d check this out. I also used an online form to send a Web message directly to Scott Shane, who ran the 10:16 PM headline. Still no response.

This follows remarks recently made by NYPD’s Ray Kelly -- remarks which I reported here, and which Fox News, The Washington Times and others quoted directly from my blog -- stating “we were not consulted” about the trial location. My headline was furiously tweeted up until about a day ago.

So tonight, I’ll treat this post as a live thread, and continue to try and speak with someone at The New York Times. Keep your eyes open here for details. It’s 10:32 PM and still no mention from the Times.

10:46 PM | Just spoke to Valencia, another youngster in the national newsroom, giving her my name and the name of my blog. She says they’re aware of the story, and that it has been recently updated online. However, I know the story of which she speaks (see above) and inform her that, in fact, it makes no mention of Obama's order to the Justice Department to consider another location for the trial.

Valencia states that they're working on it, but that they’re in between editions.

I ask her when they’ll run the story, and she says, “Soon.” “It’s part of another story,” she informs me.

[Damn; in mid-sentence I remember that I planned to ask to speak with someone senior. If they don't run this soon I'll call back and do just that. Back to Valencia.]

“Which story?” is this part of, I ask. “Terror,” she replies.

Wow, that’s a little odd. Is there another larger story about terror I don't know about, or is she just grasping for straws?

It’s 10:55 PM and now the story has been updated to read, “But Mr. Obama left any decision on moving the trial to the Justice Department, and administration officials said they had begun to discuss contingency plans for possible new locations."

It clearly does not say that Obama has ordered Justice to do anything, nor does it state that they’ve been talking tonight. It doesn’t state when administration officials made the statement about new locations. -- p.k.

11:06 PM | The Times updates the “Opposition” headline above to read “Administration Deliberates Site of 9/11 Trial.” Nothing new in the story; in fact it repeats the sentence that begins “But Mr. Obama left any decision…” So they're updating the site a bit sloppily, and still no word that Obama has issued any order. -- p.k.

11:19 PM | I just hung up the phone after leaving a voicemail for the NY Daily News. I thought it was time to get their take on this discrepancy. Their tip line is a voicemail only, no live person. Tried another number but it did not answer at all, so I called back the tip line number.

I told them there was a clear discrepancy in their headline and the Times’ story. The Daily News states that Obama ordered Justice to consider a new location; the Times still states that Obama is leaving it up to them. I also requested that they reach one of the three authors listed, inform them of the discrepancy, and ask one of them to call me. I did not mention that I publish a blog.

The Times did correct the duplicate sentence, so their story is now more coherent. -- p.k.

11:33 PM | I just sent the following message to the Daily News’ Story Tips, using a Web form on their site:

URGENT

Your breaking national story which states that Obama “ordered” the Justice Department to consider a new KSM trial location is in direct opposition to the New York Times, which finally picked up on the possibility of a new location, but which clearly states that “Mr. Obama left any decision on moving the trial to the Justice Department.”

Please have one of the three authors of your story to contact me to comment on this discrepancy. They are Kenneth R. Bazinet, Adam Lisberg and Samuel Goldsmith.

Paul Klenk
LoudCitizen.org
tel. 646-XXX-XXXX

11:42 PM | I just sent the following message to Benjamin Weiser of the Times, again using a Web form linked from his byline. I included a link to the Daily News’ story.

RE The KSM terror trial and the Justice Department’s reconsideration of a trial location...

Mr. Weiser:

Your new story on this trial states that “Mr. Obama left any decision on moving the trial to the Justice Department.”

However, this is in direct opposition to the Daily News, which states that Obama “ordered” the Justice Department to consider a new KSM trial location (see attached link).

Drudge is running with the Daily News version; can you please contact me to comment on this discrepancy? It is not possible for Obama to have made and [sic] order, and also left the decision to Justice.

Paul Klenk
LoudCitizen.org
tel. 646-XXX-XXXX

11:58 PM | The Daily News’ headline has changed; it backs down from its claim that Obama “orders” Justice to change of venue of the trial, and now reads “asks.” The URL of story, however, still reveals that the original headline used the word “orders.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/01/28/2010-01-28_white_house_orders_justice_department_to_look_for_other_places_to_hold_911_terro.html

The New York Times’ story is developing and changing rapidly online, with new links and new copy.

I have sent an e-mail to BigGovernment and BigJournalism notifying them of the discrepancy, and of my efforts to document it. -- p.k.

12:13 AM | Drudge is still quoting the original Daily News headine: PAPER: OBAMA ORDERS JUSTICE TO MOVE TERROR TRIAL OUT OF NYC. -- p.k.

12:32 AM | My so-called “orders”-to-“asks” controversy is really a non-story, I am realizing.

The headline at the Daily News has changed, but their story still reads, “The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday…” So I was wrong; they are definitely not backing down from their claim that Obama ordered this.

And the Times still states that “Obama left the decision” to Justice.

So their is still a direct conflict in these two reports.

Which is it, journalists? It can’t be both. Who is calling the shots, Obama or the Justice Department? – p.k.

2:41 AM | Is my “direct conflict” claim true, or is it much ado about nothing?

A careful re-reading of the statements by these two newspapers indicates that it may be somewhere in between.

I have been contrasting one report that “Obama left the decision” to Justice, and another report that he “ordered” a change.

I have made a slight correction after reading the NY Daily News’ account more carefully, and have struck out “change” and replaced it with “consider changing,” based on their text.

But think about this: When you “ask” someone to consider changing something, it is a suggestion. But what is it if you “order” someone to consider something? How exactly does one order someone to consider a change? That does not make sense, and should not go unchallenged.

Obama is the President, and he has been pushing for a civilian trial based on his philosophical beliefs, and his desire to present a showcase to the world of… well, of something. Does anyone really believe that Holder made a unilateral decision and then informed the President what he had decided? I certainly don’t. This is Obama’s doing.

And that is the heart of the conflict in these two accounts. It seems someone wants to have it both ways.

I can be charitable and concede that there is a tiny bit of wiggle room (but only a bit) for the Times and the NY Daily News to present their stories the way they are. But I still believe their stories conflict.

And I place the ultimate blame for this conflict on the Obama administration. Obama is hiding behind Holder, and perhaps is even setting him up to take the blame for any disaster which results from this reckless decision – by someone – to hold the KSM trial in a neighborhood with thousands of residents living steps away.

The question remains: Who is calling the shots? The American people deserve to know. And the press needs to stop wiggling and demand a direct answer. – p.k.

3:11 AM | It is the middle of the night, so of course I have not heard back from either paper. But for the record, I will detail my latest contacts with them.

I left a voicemail with the Times’ National desk at 1:56 AM, asking for a callback from Shane or Weiser, and sent an e-mail to them at 2:08 AM asking for the same.
I left a voicemail with the NY Daily News at 2:10 AM, asking for a callback from Bazinet, Lisbert, or Goldsmith.

What I really need to know from them is, can they provide direct quotes from anyone? At the moment, neither of their stories offers direct, attributed quotes from someone taking responsibility for these decisions.

And it’s time I began reading other accounts of this story, and stop making it about two newspapers. Surely someone is pressing for clarification from the administration on the question, “Who is calling the shots?” – p.k.

9:24 AM | As of this moment, neither paper has returned calls or e-mails.

A quick check reveals that neither paper has updated its stories linked above, and neither has published a new story since last night. I’ll start reaching out to the reporters and newsrooms again.

Meanwhile, the kettle is on and coffee will be ready shortly. – p.k.

10:18 AM | I just spoke with Kenneth Bazinet, White House correspondent for the NY Daily News. He had returned my call, knowing from my voicemail exactly what it was about. I was on the phone with Adam Lisberg of his paper’s City Hall bureau when his call came through, so I called him back moments later. (Lisberg said he did not know the answer to my question, which is understandable; he’s covering the local angle, and not Washington. He agreed that Bazinet was the one to speak to.)

I reached Bazinet directly this time and asked him about the discrepancy. He said that with “15 16 years working in this town” he does not “discuss sources and methods.” I assured him I did not expect him to divulge sources, but merely wanted a comment on the wording of what he had been told, and the difference in the papers’ claims.

He did not express any curiosity about this question, or the issue of whose order it was. He said I should “call an academic,” a comment I found strange, and which I guess might mean the paper’s academic department (?) for their view of the order of constitutional authority.

He said mine was the first, and he expected the last, such call he would receive on this question today. He asked what my blog was all about and wished me luck. – p.k.

10:55 AM | I just spoke with The New York Times’ Scott Shane in Washington about the Daily News’ claim that Obama “ordered” Holder to consider changing the venue. Shane first told me that the Daily News had since changed their story. I informed him they had not, and that I had just spoken with Bazinet, who did not back down on his story. I then read the opening sentence to him:

“The White House ordered the Justice Department Thursday night to consider other places…”

About this statement, Shane stated, “It is wrong; just think about it in terms of common sense.” Holder “doesn’t need to be ordered” to change the venue, because when even Senator Charles Schumer, who is “close to the White House, changed his view, it was obvious” that it needed to happen.

Shane said that there are not many places they can hold the trial. I asked him about the possibility of a military base, even though it’s a civilian trial, and he said “there’s talk of that,” but didn’t think it would happen, and that when it comes to ideas for venues, “I don’t think anyone has one.”

He reiterated that “there’s no decision yet” to move the trial, only to consider moving it. – p.k.

1:45 PM | Ken Bazinet (@BazmanianDevil) is tweeting that the Justice Department denies his claim of being “ordered” to rethink its decision. But “Baz” seems to be holding firm, neither retracting or nor standing by his story:

Justice: AG decided himself to consider moving KSM trial from NY. Admin source scoffs: "When does anyone do anything on their own in Wash?"
Justice Dept reconsidering decision to hold KSM trial in NYC, but disputes White House ordered it rethink the hugely unpopular decision.

I tweeted him: NYTimes sez your story "is wrong" and linked to this thread. Will he reply…? – p.k.

5:53 PM | Yes, Bazinet did reply to my tweet, and yes, I was correct that he is standing by his story. I’m glad I linked him back to my blog so he could read Shane’s entire statement. I wasn’t even sure whether he would see my tweet; I’m new to Twitter and not certain if people who are not following you can see your replies.

I wish I could have seen his face when he read Shane’s quotes. Here’s Bazinet’s response, written in between working on a follow up to his breaking story from yesterday:

“I don’t fault Mr. Shane for his opinion on my story. When you get your butt kicked on a story, your editors tend to yell at you. It happens, and let’s face it, Mr. Shane was so far behind on that story that he was sitting in the caboose.” – Kenneth R. Bazinet

Something tells me Baz was smiling devilishly as he typed that.

It’s time for me to sort through all of this and ask some bigger questions. This is not about a tiff between two rival reporters – not at all. Some deceptively subtle differences in wording reveal two very different takes on who made a key decision about one of the most controversial, historic, and possibly dangerous trials in modern American history. This is about who is calling the shots in Washington, who they’re talking to (and not talking to), who is reporting the truth about what they’re saying, and who is sitting on their ass and repeating the party line.

Watch for my analysis, which will follow shortly. – p.k.

8:45 PM | I just e-mailed Shane a link to Bazinet’s response. He confirmed receipt of it by phone. – p.k.

1:42 PM Sunday January 31 | I just noticed that NY Daily News reporter James Gordon Meek tweeted about the Times getting scooped. I replied to his tweet with a link to this page. If he did not know that both reporters went on the record with me, he does now.

@meekwire Baz and Shane in an on-the-record cat fight here: http://bit.ly/ahdFs7

While I was at it, I tweeted him about another matter, and invited the readers of Big Journalism to do the same:

@meekwire, Will u issue a retraction to your O'Keefe slander (http://bit.ly/abw6S9), per the @BigJournalism story at http://bit.ly/cLgXrE?

– p.k.

NYPD’s Ray Kelly quietly drops an anvil on Obama, to thunderous applause by young New York GOPers

2010-01-23T23:27:00.017-05:00

Raymond W. Kelly’s remarks Thursday to The New York Young Republican Club started out sounding very boilerplate – like a speech by any of the City’s mayors, police officials, and tourism execs: “Crime is down, tourism is up, come to Times Square and see a show.” So why had the NY Post’s Maggie Haberman announced his appearance as “unusual” and “surprising”?

By the time it was over, it was clear why. We had witnessed this politically independent, world-class police commissioner quietly employ a few dry statistics and facts to slide an anvil off a ledge, allowing gravity to deliver its full weight upon Barack Obama’s head.

New York, “a shining city upon a hill,” has just surpassed Orlando as the number one tourist destination in America, we learn from Mr. Kelly. It is a city so increasingly safe that when crime is rising elsewhere, we are setting new low records for murders-per-million. But it is still under such a severe and constant threat that its streets are crawling, at any given moment, with 1500 to 2000 highly sophisticated radiation detectors, and crammed with live-monitored surveillance cameras downtown (and soon to reach to 60th Street).

A city evidently so safe, prepared, and teeming with carefree tourists that the President of the United States has unilaterally decided it should – no, must – play host to terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s upcoming “criminal” trial in lower Manhattan. Obama, hiding behind the singularly unserious Eric Holder, has recklessly painted an enormous target on NYC’s back, and feverishly directed the attention of our most lethal enemies to its bull’s-eye – against the wishes of its residents and leaders.

“We were not consulted,” Kelly said tersely of the decision. He stated that the trial “will raise the threat level of this city,” a threat that “will not fade any time soon.” And it affects more than lower Manhattan, we learned. “We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target.”

The audience was stunned. Then Kelly opened the floor to questions.

Every audience response which followed – if my memory and others’ is correct – was about terrorism in general and the KSM trial in particular.

One man asked about neighborhood block-watching, especially in light of the unmarked van that recently went unnoticed in Times Square for at least two days. We were assured such strategies are still relevant, and that Kelly and the City are tuned into citizen input. A woman in the audience confirmed the City’s credibility in this regard. She related that after witnessing suspicious activity, she was greeted with ho-hums (and zero follow-up) by every Federal agency she notified, but was taken very seriously by NYPD, and assured that her report was being sent straight to intel. It was obvious who is listening to 3 a.m. calls, and who is snoozing.

The evening’s high point occurred when Marion D.S. Dreyfus rose to her feet and literally begged Kelly to advise the crowd what we could all do – in addition to our unheeded calls and letters – to force Obama to scrap his KSM & Co. showcase in lower Manhattan. Her question sparked thunderous applause from the young professionals.

Kelly’s answer included a faint “Ray” of hope: Michael Isikoff’s recent Newsweek report of whispers that the trial plan is “potentially in jeopardy.” Isikoff had made this known well before the January 19 Senate Dem-olition, so in the post-Brown climate, what senior officials were leaking anonymously may soon appear on the record. It cannot help that lower Manhattan’s Community Board 1 is likely to unanimously reject the trial next week, and demand that Holder move it to a non-residential location.

What does Ray Kelly know that Obama, Holder, and Napolitano don’t? Clearly, a great deal. The Vietnam combat veteran and gifted security heavyweight is celebrated and trusted by the people responsible for keeping New York safe – at least those outside this administration. This cannot be said of Team Obama.

Club president Lynn Krogh, likely unaware what Kelly was planning to say, had reminded her members moments earlier that Scott Brown’s Tuesday victory is proof of the people’s power in 2010, and that what happened in Massachusetts can happen in New York. Let’s hope the crowd recognized that this includes the power to shake the White House out of its current coma, so it abandons its outrageous plan to endanger us all for ideology’s sake.

Poll-watching during Massachusetts’ historic January 2010 special election

2010-01-19T00:44:00.006-05:00

PART I: January 18, 2010 – Today I heard about an opportunity to poll watch in tomorrow’s historic special election in Massachusetts. Of course, I jumped at the chance and responded. Moments later, my contact at Americans for Limited Government was on the line with me, making my train reservation and exchanging cell phone numbers. Then I threw together a suitcase and ran out the door to catch the subway from Astoria, Queens to Penn Station.

I had just exhausted myself on Saturday, January 16 in Agawam, Mass. with The New York Young Republican Club, in a door-to-door get-out-the-vote effort for senate hopeful Scott Brown. After that long day, I could barely muster the strength to make Internet phone bank calls for Brown from my dusty bedroom. But when I saw this job come up in today’s Facebook newsfeed, I grabbed it. High on the list of motivating factors was an opportunity to dine with fellow patriots after the day’s labors and get “liquored up.”

For those of you in transit from Jupiter, or living in a dark, muddy ditch in Venezuela, Brown has a chance to take the U.S. Senate seat vacated when Edward “Teddy” Kennedy departed to meet his maker in 2009. If successful Tuesday, Brown will destroy the Dem’s supermajority, complicate the push for ObamaCare™, and sink a sharp knife deeply into Obama’s already rapidly failing presidency. Brown’s opponent is the singularly uninspiring Martha Coakley, known to some of her most ardent supporters as “Marcia.” It’s a close race – which is why poll-watching is vital – but I am hopeful for a win.

So tonight, riding in business class on Amtrak’s exceptional Acela Express to Boston, I am meeting someone holding a sign, to be whisked to Woburn’s Hampton Inn and hopefully given some training, a late meal, and some suds.

On the train, I’m relaxing with Tarantino’s Basterds on my laptop, texting hotel details to my family, drinking Corona, typing this article, and calling the hotel to see if they have wifi (they do), and food (yes, hot breakfast and close proximity to Joe’s Bar and Grill). They’re thirty minutes from Boston’s South Station; the map I managed to snap on screen before I packed my laptop indicates that there’s a Peet’s Coffee and Tea two blocks from the station, so perhaps it was in God’s plan that I forgot to replenish my Starbucks on last night’s grocery run. Guess I’ll be leaving for the station an hour early Wednesday and driving everyone in my Amtrak car crazy from the smell.

“Pick up your penny and your suitcase,” sings ELO on my laptop’s iTunes at this very moment. Well, on my budget, this is exactly what I’m doing tonight. “Hold on tight to your dreams,” they continue on the next track. But freedom is not a dream; it is a concrete, obtainable reality. A reality we can lose, yes, but definitely not a mere dream. I’m holding on tight anyway.

I don’t know what tomorrow will bring, but I’m sure I’ll be ready to make a difference at the polls. By happenstance, I had a clean purple T-shirt in my laundry, so I packed it. Maybe this will confuse the SEIU thugs likely to be lurking menacingly at my assigned polling place, or maybe it will just piss them off. Either way, it’s a win.

I’ll check in late tomorrow in Part II with a full report of the day. Meanwhile, please pray for a win for Brown. And pray hard.

Breitbart announces January 6 launch of BigJournalism.com

2009-12-28T17:36:00.004-05:00

Today, Andrew Breitbart announced that January 6 is the date he will launch BigJournalism.com. He stated this when guest-hosting for Dennis Miller on his radio show this morning.

Earlier, Mr. Breitbart had announced a January debut, but not until today has he stated the exact date, at least not to my knowledge.

Earlier this year, he launched BigHollywood and BigGovernment.com, and has stated he has quietly bought up other domains such as BigEU, BigJerusalem, BigSoros, BigEducation, BigTolerance, and BigEnvironment.

My own research reveals that he has purchased other domains that have not been announced or mentioned elsewhere. Some of these include BigDemocrat, BigAcademics, BigWelfare, and the eponymous BigBreitbart. I believe there are several others.

When launching BigGovernment.com this fall, Mr. Breitbart broke the now-notorious story about the corrupt ACORN organization, with a series of videos and transcripts. He serialized the story by releasing the videos in a slow drip, which snared ACORN in lie after lie.

He did not state today whether he has a journalism-related story to break on January 6, nor did he mention the identity of the BigJournalism’s editor.

“Pick up your penny and your suitcase” – Prescient lyrics on healthcare eve [VIDEO]

2009-12-21T02:57:00.005-05:00

On the eve of the notorious and deadly Senate healthcare vote of December 2009, Facebook and Twitter statuses everywhere are mourning the passing of America. My friend Frank’s says it best:

“The republic is dying, long live the republic.”

For no particular reason, I decided tonight to download the Electric Light Orchestra’s 1981 album, “Time.” Quite a bit of nostalgia in the sounds and ideas of these songs; they are hopeful, haunting, majestic and mournful.

And suddenly, as I listen to the lyrics of “21st Century Man,” my insides are knocked out. The words seem to speak to what we have lost tonight, something we will look back on from the future, in our dreams, from a sort of empty outer space in a broken America we can only dread in the present.

Listen to the song on YouTube, and read the lyrics below. See if they strike you the way they struck me:

A penny in your pocket
Suitcase in your hand
They won’t get you very far
Now you’re a 21st century man.

Fly across the city
Rise above the land
You can do ‘most anything
Now you're a 21st century man.

Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow (tomorrow)
You still wander the fields of your sorrow
What will it bring?

One day you’re a hero
Next day you're a clown
There’s nothing that is in between
Now you're a 21st century man.

You should be so happy
You should be so glad
So why are you so lonely
You 21st century man?

You stepped out of a dream
Believing everything was gone
Return with what you’ve learned
They’ll kiss the ground you walk upon.

Things ain’t how you thought they were
Nothing have you planned
So pick up your penny and your suitcase
You’re not a 21st century man.

Though you ride on the wheels of tomorrow
You still wander the fields of your sorrow (sorrow)
Tomorrow, 21st century man
21st century man
21st century man...

(Lyrics by Jeff Lynne)

– Paul Klenk

The inconspicuous flagpole: What Google Maps reveals

2009-12-05T07:50:00.001-05:00

[Please comment and share with friends.]

No doubt you have heard of the flagpole complaint* against Col. Van T. Barfoot, a 90-year-old Medal of Honor recipient and Choctaw Indian. His homeowner’s association is trying to force him to remove the flagpole on his property, for purportedly “aesthetic” reasons, even though the association’s bylaws do not expressly forbid free-standing flagpoles or vertical masts.

Hoping to catch a pedestrian’s eye view of Barfoot’s house using Google’s Street View, I looked up his Richmond, Virginia address in an Internet phone directory, and then plugged it into Google Maps. His house was not pictured; Google’s cameras have not reached his street.

What the map does reveal, however, was a surprise: Barfoot’s property is situated in a cul-de-sac at the end of a winding lane. The only way to get there is to turn off the main street (Gayton Road), enter the cloistered neighborhood, turn off Sussex Square Drive onto Coat Bridge Lane, and follow that street around a final curve to a dead end. In other words, only a few close neighbors in his association can actually see his house. Unless you live next door to him, you would have to go out of your way to see the flagpole (or the flag, which is what I believe this is really about).

Furthermore, his property lies at the outer perimeter of the development, which borders a large tract of open land. Visible by satellite, again using Google, you can see an adjacent area covered with brush, then a large open space, past which is a shopping or business development. So the opportunity to see his property is extremely minimal.

Not that any of this matters; the flagpole is only 21 feet high. Photos of his modest home shot from the street reveal that the pole barely reaches the top of the house and is in no way conspicuous. What cannot be seen cannot pose an aesthetic issue.

I am guessing, therefore, that it is one or two immediate neighbors who are making this an issue – either that, or some idle busybodies on the HOA board.

A CONVERSATION WITH THE FAMILY

While on hold with Mark Levin’s radio show yesterday to speak about this, I telephoned the Barfoot residence to confirm that I had the right address.

I was right. Barfoot’s son-in-law, Roger Nicholls, confirmed by phone that you’d have to go out of your way to see the pole. Their phone has been so bombarded, they have had to schedule people to answer calls in shifts, he said. Because of the lawsuit, he is not providing a lot of other information to the press. But it is not a happy time for this family; the lawsuit has caused Barfoot and the Nicholls – who live on the same street – an enormous amount of stress.

Mark’s show ended before I could speak to him on-air; I’ll try again Monday.

DISTINGUISHED AMERICAN HERO

Barfoot’s life and exploits during WW II are notable enough that he actually has his own Wikipedia article. The article was not created in response to the lawsuit controversy; it was first published over two years ago.

* At present there is no lawsuit against Barfoot – only the threat of one. The HOA, in a statement on their lawyer’s Web site, states that it is a “request.” Other sources indicate there is a $10 fine for each day he does not comply with the HOA’s request. On Thursday night (December 3), the HOA extended its deadline to December 11 – the anniversary of the U.S. declaration of war on Italy and Germany.

– Paul Klenk

How do you scare a New Yorker on Halloween? Dress as a Republican. (Or, A “Bête Noir” Party)

2009-09-28T12:31:00.002-04:00

-- from the 1912 edition of "Dame Curtsey's book of party pastimes for the up-to-date hostess," by Ellye Howell Glover:

"Chapter X: Pastimes for October. For Allhallow Eve"

Did you ever attend a Bête Noir party? Well, they are great fun. Of course, everyone knows that "bête noir" is the French for whatever a person detests or cordially hates. So all the guests appeared wearing what to them was their greatest horror.

So, what would be an example of a "Bête Noir" costume?

An unmarried girl of uncertain age convulsed the crowd when she appeared with a fringe of lemons around a green overskirt and passed lemons, which were candy boxes filled with candy in exact imitation of lemon quarters. *

Which brings me to my point: Why not organize a group to dress up and march in this year's Village Halloween Parade? How can we, as conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, and others who detest or cordially hate Barack Obama (our greatest horror) convulse the throngs of parade-goers?...

What sort of outrageous tomfoolery could we engage in to make a political point and offend all the right people, namely, New York liberal Village idiots?

Now, it may be too late to construct a two-story, animated stick puppet in the likeness of Our Great Leader, but I'm sure if we put our heads together, we can think of something.

One idea I had today, after viewing a new video of New Jersey schoolchildren singing praises to Obama during Black History Month, would be to dress as school children, and sing "Praise Obama" repeatedly to the tune of Beethoven's Ode to Joy, and "Jesus Loves the Little Children," with Obama's name instead of Jesus. We could be led with a banner for the "B. Bernice Young Elementary School, Burlington Township, New Jersey," and carry socialist propaganda placards. Maybe if we're lucky, people will call us racists!

If you think this is a bit over the top, you can read the actual lyrics of a song sung by children at this very school.

If you have ideas for the parade, or wish to participate by marching, designing, or planning, please leave your ideas as comments to this article, and send me a UE mail with your contact information.

In the next few days, I hope to have a planning meeting set up for anyone interested.

-- Paul Klenk

* This is from a book that, in its own words, is written "for the benefit of the thousands of people who have no time to do their own thinking." Sounds like the Democratic Party Handbook.

About Loud Citizen

2006-12-12T22:24:00.005-05:00

Paul Klenk, self portrait

Loud Citizen is published by me, Paul Klenk, a writer and occasional citizen reporter living in Astoria, Queens, NYC. I am an Executive Assistant by profession, a singer and pianist by education, and I have many interests and obsessions, including unit origami, anagrams and Scrabble, Web publishing, political activism, film and film criticism, and most of all, the good news of Jesus Christ.

The name “Loud Citizen” was not coined by me. Kevin Conner of Florida published a Web site, LoudCitizen.com, during the election recount of 2000, to protest Al Gore’s failed attempt to steal the election. In January 2001, I rallied with Kevin on the steps of the Supreme Court, in support of Bush at his first inauguaration.

He started local on-line chapters by using Yahoo’s eGroups, and I moderated the New York Yahoo group (newyork-gwb) for six years. Now that Kevin’s organization and the Web site no longer exist, and the name is no longer in use, I have adopted the name Loud Citizen.

I credit Kevin as the man responsible for getting me into activism. He was a model of calm, intelligent, persistent work, and knew how to use organization skills and relationships to get things done. Thanks, Kevin.