Why Lies About Obama Resist the Truth
If you want to know how someone like David Jackson could nurse an irrational fear of President Obama, you need only look to conservative FreedomWatch founder and CEO Larry Klayman. At the Million Vets March on Oct. 13 in Washington, he was the one who said, “I call upon all of you to wage a second American nonviolent revolution, to use civil disobedience, and to demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up.”
There is so much wrong with Klayman’s remarks. But he was unapologetic during an Oct. 18 MSNBC interview with Martin Bashir. “As a journalist and as a writer, Martin, you know that those references were metaphoric,” he said, “but they ring true.” Watch Klayman’s speech [if you dare—VB]. There was nothing metaphorical about what he said about Obama. When Bashir accused Klayman of spreading lies about the president, Klayman said something that explains why anti-Obama calumny persists despite ample evidence to the contrary. “You consider them to be lies, Martin,” he said. “I consider them to be true.”
Klayman urged Bashir and viewers to read his column on the fringe right Web site worldnetdaily.com, “which explains exactly what I said.” So, that’s what I did. And to read it is to wade through the cesspool of conspiracy that feeds the fears of Jackson and other far-right critics of the president. “Here are just a few facts, among many, that are incontrovertible,” Klayman writes in his column. “Facts” that are easily demolished.
“First, there is no doubt that under Islamic law Obama is considered a Muslim, as his father was a Muslim.”
There is plenty of doubt. When the issue of Obama’s religious lineage arose during the 2008 campaign, Edward Luttwak wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood.” This assertion was knocked back by then Times public editor Clark Hoyt.