PDA

View Full Version : Ridiculous RW Lies Connect Hassan & Obama Transiti



Gayle in MD
11-16-2009, 08:54 AM
Ridiculous lies connecting Hassan to Obama's Transtition Team, based on a public event, before he was even the Democratic Candidate!!!!


Lies which have already been acknowledged by the RW nut who wrote them, as being lies....

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/wnd-conspiracists-bogus-claim-hasan

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was only a matter of time, I suppose, before the wingnuts tried to maliciously and deceitfully connect the Fort Hood shooter to the Obama White House. We just didn't expect it would take less than 24 hours.

And of course the perpetrator is the reliably wrong conspiracy-meister Jerome Corsi, writing at WorldNetDaily:

NEW YORK – Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the alleged shooter in yesterday's massacre at Fort Hood, played a homeland security advisory role in President Barack Obama's transition into the White House, according to a key university policy institute document.

The Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University published a document May 19, entitled "Thinking Anew – Security Priorities for the Next Administration: Proceedings Report of the HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force, April 2008 – January 2009," in which Hasan of the Uniformed Services University School of Medicine is listed on page 29 of the document as a Task Force Event Participant.

Media Matters has the facts:

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition" -- indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 "Task Force Event Participants" in the report's appendix, <span style='font-size: 26pt'>HSPI has reportedly said he was not a "member" of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP'd for several of the group's open events</span>.</span>Why, we can hardly wait for the next Glenn Beck episode.

The fact that it is crap, of course, guarantees that Glenn Beck et al will run with it. We can now look forward to a “the Fort Hood killer advised the Obama transition team” meme -– shortened to calling him “an Obama adviser”.

This is, naturally, just par for the course for Corsi:

Corsi is also a frequent participant in FreeRepublic.com's online forums, posting under the pseudonym "jrlc" since 2001. (Click here to read a full set of Corsi's posts; click here to read the post in which "jrlc" admits to being Jerome Corsi.)

On FreeRepublic.com, Corsi has, among other things, said that "ragheads" are "boy buggers"; referred to "John F*ing Kerry"; called Senator Hillary Clinton a "Fat Hog"; referred to her daughter as "Chubby Chelsie" Clinton; referred to Janet Reno as "Janet Rhino"; called Katie Couric "Little Katie Communist"; suggested Kerry was "practicing Judaism"; and expressed the wish that a small plane that had crashed into a building in Los Angeles had instead crashed into the set of NBC'S The West Wing, thereby killing actor Martin Sheen.

After penning the Swift Boat book, Corsi co-authored a book with Jim Gilchrist about the wonderful Minuteman movement. It included a chapter devoted to extolling the virtues of then-Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, who wanted to run Orange County the way Joe Arpaio runs Maricopa County. Except that Mike Carona was actually a corrupt cop who wound up resigning.

Then he wrote his first outright conspiracy tome: The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada which ostensibly exposed secret plans to form a "North American Union" by combining the three countries into one. He evidently folds that theory into his latest book.

Then he wrote last year's The Obama Nation (get it? Abomination/Obama Nation?) which was the usual farrago of distortions, fabrications, and outright falsehoods we've come to expect from him. In between, he helped drum up media interest in the phony Ramos/Compean case.

There are mainstream conservatives who have spoken out about how badly this kind of embrace of extremism by movement leaders reflects on their ideology. But as we pointed out then, it's much more deeply entrenched than they realize.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 26pt'>
Without Conscience! </span> </span>

pooltchr
11-16-2009, 09:28 AM
He RSVP'd????? I wonder who invited him.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-16-2009, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He RSVP'd????? I wonder who invited him.

Steve </div></div>

While I seldom read your posts, just so I won't forget how stunningly ignorant you are, I decided to click on this one, since there was no doubt, the response would further prove your ignorance...Do You Know What The Words "OPEN EVENT" mean?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FRIDAY MORNING UPDATE: Daniel Kaniewski, the institute's deputy director, confirms that Hasan attended task force meetings as an audience member, and <span style='font-size: 20pt'>stresses that he was not a member of the task force. "All of our events are open to the public," Kaniewski says, "and when someone RSVPs we put their name in the [report] so everyone knows who was in the room." </span>He says institute staffers recall Hasan attending at least one task force event, and that he RSVP'd for several. "We do recall him speaking at one of our events as an audience member," he says, "but none of us recall what he actually said. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Generally, our events are attended by people in the homeland security community, and Hasan had a very legitimate reason to be there. He was a fellow at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences." </span></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WND claim contradicted by HSPI report and WND article itself
Corsi: No evidence "the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition." In his article, Corsi wrote: "While the GWU task force participants included several members of government, including representatives of the Department of Justice and the U.S Department of Homeland Security, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>there is no indication in the document that the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition,</span> other than to serve in a university-based advisory capacity."

HSPI Presidential Transition Task Force initiated in April 2008 -- well before Obama's election. According to the HSPI Presidential Task Force report Corsi uses to establish the link between Hasan and the organization, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"in April 2008 The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) established the Presidential Transition Task Force, comprised of national and homeland security experts, policymakers and practitioners."</span> </div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/research/200911060011

While I'm sure neither you, nor your equally ignorant co-heart, Little Weenie Wonkie, will admit to to yet another of your frequently posted BS posts, which are shot down regularly by we on the left, this latest of your insane RW fake conspiracy theories, highlights not only your inability to READ, but also your willingness to scoop up all the **** which right wing media uses to continue their propaganda assault on liberal intelligence, so ....do me a favor, will ya?

Let me send you some Depends.... You and the No Where Man, have been proven illogical, and dishonest, AGAIN!


Next time read the post before you decide to stalk me with yet another example of your inability to read the language, or to put two and two together, with all of your economic expertise!!


G.

LWW
11-16-2009, 09:48 AM
He didn't.

He is listed clearly in the cocuments as a "PARTICIPANT" of the task force.

Listed along with Nidal Malik Hasan as particpants were at least 6 members of the US senate and 15 members of the house along with numerous members of homeland security, foreign ambassadors, and captains of industry and finance.

Playing Hasan off as a rube with a ticket is extremely dishonest and further evidence that the far left will excuse anything ... I really thought child prostitution was beyond them in the past, but I was wrong ... to defend their messiah.

Also, playing this task force off as something insignificant and informal is preposterous. If this were true then can someone please explain why US senator Connie Mack, Andrew C McCarthy, Ed Meese, William Webster, William Sessions, James Woolsey, and others served on the steering committee?

OH DEAR! (http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_ProceedingsReport_05.19.09.pdf)

LWW

LWW
11-16-2009, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do You Know What The Words OPEN EVENT mean?</div></div>

Do you know what the word "PARTICIPANT" means sweetheart?

LWW

wolfdancer
11-16-2009, 12:26 PM
Gayle, interesting article...I see the short version of that poison pen crap, here every day.
For you own "anger management", I'd advise you to completely ignore
the "special one". Since you know beforehand,
A) you aren't going to agree with his self promoting posts...distortions of the truth, etc, and
B)that any reply, is just an excuse for him, to write one his boiler plate, H.S. insulting posts, then
C)scurry on back over to that other site, with another " I really showed that b***h today, victory announcements.
I'd rather become a card carrying member of the Glenn Beck fan club, then have any exchange with him.
I wonder if folks here know about how he disparages the members on this site, over there?
I never did understand the concept of earning "Rep Points" over there, by insulting someone, say,you, for your comments over here?
But then every site has it's charm and appeal...
AND, then even more laughable, is his reasoning for posting here, a site that doesn't meet the high, lofty status of ***.
It seems that his leadership here is needed, to keep the right informed, lest they be bedazzled by the counter claims of the left.

Gayle in MD
11-16-2009, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, interesting article...I see the short version of that poison pen crap, here every day.
For you own "anger management", I'd advise you to completely ignore
the "special one". Since you know beforehand,
A) you aren't going to agree with his self promoting posts...distortions of the truth, etc, and
B)that any reply, is just an excuse for him, to write one his boiler plate, H.S. insulting posts, then
C)scurry on back over to that other site, with another " I really showed that b***h today, victory announcements.
I'd rather become a card carrying member of the Glenn Beck fan club, then have any exchange with him.
I wonder if folks here know about how he disparages the members on this site, over there?
I never did understand the concept of earning "Rep Points" over there, by insulting someone, say,you, for your comments over here?
But then every site has it's charm and appeal...
AND, then even more laughable, is his reasoning for posting here, a site that doesn't meet the high, lofty status of ***.
It seems that his leadership here is needed, to keep the right informed, lest they be bedazzled by the counter claims of the left.
</div></div>

Wolf,
I have them back on ignore, and don't intend to read anything else they post, my attorney will be reading their posts in the future.

My site will be up in a few more weeks, and after that, I'll be addressing some other issues, which I didn't want to get into until my site was up and running...

You can't expose private personal information on the internet for malicious purposes. We both know who did that...

You can't call someone a communist, on the internet, when they are not a member of the communist party. That is malicious slander, and defamation of character.

Where there is a clear trend, by the same person, (people) a very strong case results, if they have broken the law.

Slanderous actions have legal consequences.

G.

pooltchr
11-16-2009, 01:54 PM
I guess that wouldn't apply to someone who maked unsubstantiated accusations about the so-called treasonus activities of a former POTUS, would it?

Steve

wolfdancer
11-16-2009, 02:17 PM
I believe there is a big distinction in a court of law, between controversial statements made about/against a "celebrity", or noted person, then those made falsely against a private citizen, for the purpose of damaging their reputation, for no worthwhile cause...not like a warning, say, to a third party about dealing with someone that you have first hand knowledge of???

But what do I know, since I only see the good in people?

Gayle in MD
11-16-2009, 06:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I believe there is a big distinction in a court of law, between controversial statements made about/against a "celebrity", or noted person, then those made falsely against a private citizen, for the purpose of damaging their reputation, for no worthwhile cause...not like a warning, say, to a third party about dealing with someone that you have first hand knowledge of???

But what do I know, since I only see the good in people? </div></div>

Yes, there is a huge distinction between what is written on the net about celebrities, but even they can sue when they have enough proof that lies are being told about them.

In the case of exposing private information, however, the illegality is very easy to prove, such as someone's legal name, for example, when it has never been used before on the net, and particularly when it is done with malice.

G.

pooltchr
11-16-2009, 07:04 PM
Do you honestly think that we don't all have personal information out on the internet where anyone can find it?
Goodle yourself!

Steve

cushioncrawler
11-16-2009, 07:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">........You can't call someone a communist, on the internet, when they are not a member of the communist party. That is malicious slander, and defamation of character.....</div></div>This reminds me of the one heard at the footy by a prof of language where he heard a supporter call the umpire .......
....... a bloody rotten poofter commie bastard.....
This he sayd inklooded all of the main categorys -- aktually there might hav been a cuss word in there relating to the umpire's religion or being an atheist.
madMac.

sack316
11-17-2009, 01:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
In the case of exposing private information, however, the illegality is very easy to prove, such as someone's legal name, for example, when it has never been used before on the net, and particularly when it is done with malice.

</div></div>

Ever had a phone? Applied for a loan? Opened a business? Been in the paper? Gone to school? Family member that does trees and genealogy? Played in a pool, bowling, etc. league? Been to court? Been married? Registered a vehicle? Have an email? etc. etc. etc.

Anyone that can answer yes to any of those questions or dozens of others has their name out there on the net somewhere. Usually pretty easy to find. With only one piece of small information, I can get names, phone numbers, addresses, etc within ten minutes. When ya start cross referencing and cross searching bits and pieces you find along the way, you'd be surprised how much is out there free and easy to find.

I got my grandfathers SSN, service records, medical history, school records, and many other things. He died in 1979, and my grandmother has never been on the internet. Everything is "out there".

Sack--- wants to ride the Tease

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 11:35 AM
That may all be true, Sack, but none of it has anything to do with the legalities of the circumstance I mentioned, which you quoted.

G.

sack316
11-18-2009, 01:32 PM
you said "particularly with malice" at the end to further your point... which I could see a gripe for.

but first you said "...the illegality is very easy to prove, such as someone's legal name, for example, when it has never been used before on the net"

So it is illegal for one's pool league to use your name online if they operate a local site? National level when in a tournament? The state breaks a law with registration info that includes one's name? A school website listing honor rolls/dean's lists? The government (local or national) in court hearings? A newspaper with a website? etc. etc. etc.

Maybe I misread your statement... but it just seemed to me you were saying it was illegal to use someone's name online, and was MORE illegal if done with malice... but illegal regardless. And if that is the case, then we all have some lawsuits lined up against all kinds of people!

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 02:36 PM
You did misread it. "With malice"

G.

sack316
11-18-2009, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You did misread it. "With malice"

G. </div></div>

Ah, ok, sorry.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the illegality is very easy to prove, such as someone's legal name, for example, when it has never been used before on the net, <u>and particularly</u> when it is done with malice. </div></div>

The "and particularly" led me to reading it as two separate offenses, one being slightly worse than the other. Hope you see how I erred.

Sack

Gayle in MD
11-18-2009, 03:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You did misread it. "With malice"

G. </div></div>

Ah, ok, sorry.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the illegality is very easy to prove, such as someone's legal name, for example, when it has never been used before on the net, <u>and particularly</u> when it is done with malice. </div></div>

The "and particularly" led me to reading it as two separate offenses, one being slightly worse than the other. Hope you see how I erred.

Sack </div></div>

Particularly was a reference to "easy to prove" but I got lazy and didn't include the parenthesis I should have...my fault.

G.

No one is better at creating outrage over imaginary injustices or threats than the modern-day right-wing.