Tag Archives: National Enquirer


We have definitely found ourselves on the other side of the looking glass. The New York Times and the Washington Post, aka the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of the journalism, have issued nearly identical press releases asking for 100 people to help them “analyze” the 24,000 Palin e-mails that Alaska will be releasing on Friday.

What do you mean we're not journalists?

It is an act of yellow journalism unparalleled in the 21st century.  These tabloid rags are mining for dirt on a woman who isn’t running for president and isn’t even a candidate for office.

The newspaper that the great Kathrine Graham once headed has made the National Enquirer look good. Her newspaper went after President Nixon and oversaw the Watergate coverage that eventually to his resignation.

Fast forward to today, where we have a fraud with multiple social security numbers sitting in the White House.  Instead of searching for the truth about Obama and his eligibility, his wholesale destruction of the economy, bringing us into a third war in Libya, these papers are instead focused on their Palin Derangement Syndrome. This is sad and disgusting; and they wonder why readership is down!

This is from the Washed-Up Post:

Over 24,000 e-mail messages to and from former Alaska governor Sarah Palin during her tenure as Alaska’s governor will be released Friday. That’s a lot of e-mail for us to review so we’re looking for some help from Fix readers to analyze, contextualize, and research those e-mails right alongside Post reporters over the days following the release.

We are limiting this to just 100 spots for people who will work collaboratively in small teams to surface the most important information from the e-mails. Participants can join from anywhere with a computer and an Internet connection.

If you need inspiration before getting started, take a look at what to expect from the e-mail drop. For micro-updates as tomorrow unfolds, check out our new Twitter feed.

This is from the NY Times:

On Friday, the State of Alaska will release more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails covering much of her tenure as governor of Alaska. Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the e-mails, which we will be posting on NYtimes.com starting on Friday afternoon.

We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight. Interested users can fill out a simple form to describe the nature of the e-mail, and provide a name and e-mail address so we’ll know who should get the credit. Join us here on Friday afternoon and into the weekend to participate.

Now here’s the best part. Go to the comments of both papers and read what people are saying. Many, many of the comments are negative.  There are some really good ones that pull no punches.  Here are a few examples before they are scrubbed.

From the WaPo:

That sucking sound you hear is WaPo slipping down below the National Enquirer in quality and integrity.

That cracking sound in the background is the last remnant of the Washington Post’s integrity falling to the ground.

wow! not since the 1930s in Nazi Germany has there been such evidence of mass psychosis ..

One-Think, One-Speak partisan lap-dogs.

You’d think this was the release of the Pentagon Papers.

And these are from the Times:

Jesus, is this what it’s come to? E-lynch mobs combing through data to use to as “gotcha” material?

I don’t remember the NY Times asking the public to go through then Senator Obama’s emails to find newsworthy materials…

Astonishing to see how low the lamestream (aka state run) media have sunk. This is nothing more than juvenile junior high clique style gossip and defamation of character. It is hilarious to watch you all jump out of your skin when Sarah says, “BOO!”
No honor or pride left in the journalism business, eh? The professionalism went a long time ago.

Both the Times and the Washington Post are sending out identical notices of recruitment!! What is this journalistic ploy? How many staffers do you plan to let go to cover this assignment with “just plain folks”? Well, I guess the Progressive “investigators” can do as well. Does Obama get to add the “volunteers” to his job creation tally?

This is pathetic and quite creepy

That last quote sums it all up, doesn’t it?



OK, who the hell knows what and who to believe any more?

Well, we know its not the news from the MSM, so we are, again, reduced to quoting from the National Enquirer . . . but they got Edwards story right, didn’t they?

Looks like the copies of the Obama birth certificates are still phony but not for the reasons we have all been speculating about. According to the latest Andy Martin update on Obama in Hawaii, Obama’s birth father was a Frank Marshall Davis, a communist and some would say a sexual pervert.

According to an article in Telegraph U.K.:


Obama's Real Father?

In a surviving portion of an autobiographical manuscript, Mr Davis confirms that he was the author of Sex Rebel: Black after a reader had noticed the “similarities in style and phraseology” between the pornographic work and his poetry.

“I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.” In the introduction to Sex Rebel, Mr Davis (writing as Greene) explains that although he has “changed names and identities…all incidents I have described have been taken from actual experiences”.

He stated that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual” and that he was “ a voyeur and an exhibitionist” who was “occasionally mildly interested in sado-masochism”, adding: “I have often wished I had two penises to enjoy simultaneously the double – but different – sensations of oral and genital copulation.”

The book, which closely tracks Mr Davis’s life in Chicago and Hawaii and the fact that his first wife was black and his second white, describes in lurid detail a series of shockingly sordid sexual encounters, often involving group sex.

It appears, Mr. Obama would rather have been the son of an African sheep herder than the son of Mr. Davis, and I can’t say that I blame him.

This however, does not change the fact that, if this latest story is true, Mr. Obama, Barry, BHO . . . all have lied to the voters and the American public. His life and his campaign have been built on a series of lies.

Barry, had a choice, albeit a very tough one . . . be honest and trust the American people to be understanding or deceive, evade, and omit. Lies of omission are always the most destructive; the sense of betrayal always more palpable once the lie is discovered.

Do I have to ask can we trust Obama to tell us the truth as President?

Here’s a post script. Do you think we finally have the real story? Like I said in the beginning, who the hell knows anymore?


Ah, impeachment and sexual misconduct by a public official, apparently these warrant little or no coverage by the MSM unless there’s a Clinton involved. How else can you explain what we’re NOT hearing and what’s NOT being reported?

Would someone answer this question, how is it possible the MSM has been virtually silent about former Senator John Edwards 2:30 am meeting with his paramour and love child? Granted, this has been reported by the National Enquirer, but absent a complete and outright denial from Edwards, why no follow-up? BTW, its not as if the Enquirer hasn’t been right in the past, right Rush?

I’m asking this question as a former Edwards supporter who greatly admires his wife’s courage and character. I’m asking this question as someone who always thought the Bill/Monica story was none of our business . . . that this should have always remained a private matter between Bill and Hillary . . . that it was never a story to have trotted out for the world to gawk at.

It has been suggested that one reason for the MSM not covering this story is because Obama is still considering Edwards as his VP. AND, if the MSM looks the other way, this pick could still be possible! Say what? It’s as good a guess as anything. This is a legitimate story. It does not have to be covered with the same heavy-handed partisan way the Clinton/Monica story was, but this needs follow-up, particularly if Edwards is (was?) being considered for the #2 spot on the ticket.

Now, on to impeachment, other than Jonathan Turley’s post here, last week, and an email from a friend, the MSM never brought my attention to this story. Friday afternoon I went to C-Span to see, indeed, hearings were taking place; a surprise given the fact Pelosi had taken the issue off the table 2 years ago. I had to Google this story this morning to get a concise article about what is taking place. Here is part of Friday’s Voice of America article:

US Congressional Panel Hears Testimony on Case for Bush Impeachment

25 July 2008

Robinson report – Download (MP3) audio clip
Robinson report – Listen (MP3) audio clip

A congressional committee has heard testimony about the case for impeachment of President Bush. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports, while majority Democrats have ruled out formal impeachment efforts, they approved the public hearing to examine limitations on presidential powers and arguments about what constitute impeachable offenses.

Critics say President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached because of a range of alleged legal and constitutional abuses.

The list includes administration justifications to Congress and Americans for the war in Iraq, authorization of secret electronic surveillance, approval of harsh interrogation techniques, and defiance of congressional subpoenas.

Granted these impeachment efforts are driven, primarily by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and in some quarters just a mention of his name is “enough said” but is that a reason for the virtual silence. Yes, yes, some outlets have done reporting, but nothing major from the cable outlets.

Surely, what was happening on Friday was more important than the “newsless news” recently reported like, Obama’s plane lands in Germany.