WND Remains Obsessed With Obama: 2024 Edition
Barack and Michelle Obama left the White House nearly a decade ago, but WorldNetDaily just can't stop spinning conspiracy theories about them.
WorldNetDaily just can’t quit Barack Obama, even though he left the presidency nearlt a decade ago. It spent 2023 quite obsessed over Obama, spreading bogus conspiracy theories about and fretting that Michelle Obama might run for president — and that didn’t change going into 2024. WND columnists like Wayne Allyn Root, Mychal Massie and Scott Lively (who bizarrely likened Michelle Obama to Eva Braun) kept the flame of far-right Obama hatred burning brightly.
Meanwhile, WND’s so-called “news” side kept up More Obama derangement, more Michelle meltdowns. Meanwhile, Let’s take a look back at how that went.
Scared of Michelle
WND has long feared the possibility of Michelle Obama running for president — and the fact that she has repeatedly denied interest in doing so hasn’t stopped it from pushing that baseless speculation anyway. It has published outside articles hyping the (non-existent) possibility:
Speculation wild as Michelle Obama joins Clintons, Biden alone on Air Force One
Network anchor makes troubling prediction about Michelle Obama (WND didn’t explain why its Michelle speculation is so “troubling”)
Michelle Obama running for president? Top Obama adviser makes prediction
Despite the vague, dishonest teaser headline, that last article states that the adviser “emphatically dismissed the idea” and that she has a “longstanding disinterest in a political career.” Still, the dishonest teasing continued. Jim Darlington spent his Jan. 26 column insisting that the consistent denials are just a “head fake”:
Head fake No. 1: Well, it’s really up to Joe, whatever he decides to do. [Not.]
Head fake No. 2: Michelle O. really doesn’t want to get her hands dirty. Maybe she’s just too sensitive or too lazy. [Not.]
Head fake No. 3: Barack’s team isn’t really running the show. Joe is in charge now. He only has half of Barack’s old staffers, working as half of Joe’s new staffers, because Obama’s just a generous guy. [Not.]
Head fake No. 4: Michelle’s not even running a primary challenge, so it’s all out of the question. [Not.]
There are voices on the right, just now coming out of the ether, acknowledging the high probability of Joe stroking out (or whatever) just after his nomination is confirmed, leaving the Dems “no choice” but to name a favored replacement. Michelle Obama will take to the mic and claim it’s not a job she wants, but to save the country she is willing. And never you mind about my qualifications. Because I will have the most qualified adviser in America by my side.
Remember this. Michelle remains among America’s most beloved. The women’s vote. The black vote. Everything the Dems have to rely on. Plus, the Obama name has long since proved its mettle. And, if Trump prevails, the same manner of lawfare unjustly used against him may well be justly addressed to vanquish the treasonous, who have been doing all things possible to destroy America. So, think about it Michelle. You and Barack could play good cop/bad cop all day long, and all of America will still love you, as if your name were Oprah Obama.
The point here is that, for now, campaigning against Biden may be the fools’ mission of the century. The most logical thing is to raise the alarm, identify Biden, once and for all, as the Obama proxy that he is, and address the Obama-Biden regime as one and the same, a nation-destroying team, with our erstwhile heroine, Michelle, the next bitter slugger on deck.
The Obama-obsessed Jack Cashill revived an old conspiracy theory, with the help of his favorite discredited charlatan filmmaker, in his Feb. 14 column:
In the dreams – and schemes – of many, the replacement of choice for Biden is Michelle Obama.
With the release in 2022 of his film and accompanying book, “Michelle Obama 2024: Her Real Life Story and Plan for Power,” Los Angeles filmmaker Joel Gilbert anticipated this movement and, paradoxically, provided the ammunition for its detonation.
A dogged researcher, Gilbert knows more about Michelle than Barack does. His film and book make for the most entertaining oppo research since the Steele dossier, the difference being that Gilbert’s work is accurate, and no one pees on anyone.
The part of Michelle’s history that has long intrigued me is her sojourn at Princeton University. Princeton was my college of choice out of high school, but I could not begin to afford the tuition. Neither could Michelle.
The advantage I had over Michelle was my SAT scores. I tested well. Michelle did not. “Told by counselors that her SAT scores and her grades weren’t good enough for an Ivy League school,” writes Christopher Andersen in a sympathetic biography, “Michelle applied to Princeton and Harvard anyway.”
Cashill then turned in a racial direction, as he has been prone to do of late, arguing that Obama was too stupid (or at least not as brilliant as he himself claims to be) to get into Princeton, but got in anyway due to affirmative action:
In her various books and speeches, Michelle refuses to admit how she did get into Princeton. Simply put, universities then and now give black students a huge preference and usually enough money to make the preference count in their books.
Michelle cannot concede the reality because her persona as “South Side girl” is constructed around the Orwellian conceit that she has excelled in spite of the racist barriers she has faced. The fact that she began her thesis in 1984 proved to be portentous.
Michelle’s immunity to criticism has allowed her to fold her acceptance into Princeton into the larger story of the poor black girl fighting racism.
This is where Gilbert’s gumshoe work blows her cover.
[…]
This story, in its many permutations, smelled to Gilbert. He then went and did what investigative reporters used to do, find the guidance counselor and ask her for her take.
Gilbert wanted to identify exactly the right person. His account of finding her makes for a great story in itself. With 100% confidence, Gilbert reports that the “they” in Michelle’s story telling was a sweet, much loved, churchgoing, black woman named Nan King.
Fortunately for Michelle, Ms. King died in 2002. Her death licensed Michelle to slander her on the 2008 campaign trail and beyond.
Unfortunately for Michelle, her Princeton thesis lives on, an enduring testament to her unfitness for a Princeton education. If Nan King discouraged Michelle from going, she was right.
As we noted way back in 2008, the senior thesis Obama insists is so troublesome merely documented attitudes among black Princeton alumni who attended the school in the 1970s, and wasn’t asserting her own personal views.
An anonymously written Feb . 18 article pushed the bogus story again, touting a right-wing writer’s speculation:
A prominent voice for women’s economic issues is suggesting that Michelle Obama will be the Democrat nominee for the fall’s election, not the mentally fading and increasingly unpopular Joe Biden.
Heather R. Higgins, CEO of Independent Womens’ Voice, has written at Real Clear Wire that, “Even Jill will face reality and … opt for the switcheroo.”
[…]
She explained Biden is just “a placeholder” being used to suppress possible competition to “a much better bet,” Michelle O.
Of course Obama has said she doesn’t want the job, but the column points that was before Biden redefined the position as “a four-day workweek, consisting of one social obligation per day, and everything else delegated.”
And she warned people could go for it. After all, they went for Barack Obama twice.
[…]
Further, “And just recently an entire special edition of Life magazine about the inspiring Michelle Obama parked itself for $14.99 at your nearest supermarket checkout line. The cover may say ‘The Post-White House Phenomenon,’ but everything post-White House is confined to five paragraphs in the first introductory pages – while the rest of the 112 glossy pages are one-third backstory and two-thirds Michelle in the White House, looking presidential.”
She noted in London, betting on American politics is legal, and more bets have been placed recently on Obama moving into the White House than Biden staying there.
The anonymous writer didn’t explain why gamblers should be trusted.
Even WND seemed to get tired of pushing a bogus story — though it didn’t stop writing dishonest teaser headlines hinting at the possibility. Larry Elder’s Feb. 29 column carried the headline “Will Gruesome Newsom or Michelle O. replace Biden?” despite stating in the opening paragraph that the answer is no and then elaborating further:
Neither California Gov. Gavin Newsom nor former first lady Michelle Obama will become the Democrats’ 2024 presidential candidate. No amount of President Joe Biden’s mental decline, forgetfulness, mumbling or stumbling can change that. If Biden can fog up a mirror come Election Day, he will be the nominee. If he cannot, Vice President Kamala Harris awaits, on deck, bat in hand.
[…]
This brings us to Michelle Obama. For the reasons outlined above, black voters – particularly black female voters – would resent a ploy to cast Harris aside, but there is one caveat: The substitute would have to be a popular black female. Only two fit the bill: Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama. Winfrey does not want the gig and, despite the hopeful speculation, neither does Obama. She hates politics.
WND gave it one last stab in a March 5 article reprinted from the discredited Gateway Pundit under the teasing headline “Michelle Obama running for president? Her office responds to rumors” — though it too had to resort to telling the truth by conceding that it wasn’t happening, even as it rehashed those same rumors:
Former First Lady Michelle Obama will not be running for president, her office confirmed.
Prominent political figures have recently predicted Michelle Obama will be the Democrat presidential nominee in 2024.
The majority of Democrat voters believe Joe Biden is too old to serve a second term so many are now speculating he will be replaced with California Governor Gavin Newsom… or perhaps Michelle Obama.
Ted Cruz previously said the Democrats are going to pull a surprise by drafting Michelle Obama to take Joe Biden’s place for the 2024 race.
[…]
Michelle Obama’s office confirmed to NBC News that she will not be running for president in 2024.
Still, the story didn’t go away for WND — indeed, columnist Mychal Massie spent the year in fits of rage over the (non-existent) possibly Michelle might run.
Obama meeting conspiracy
Joe Kovacs served up another reminder the WorldNetDaily cares more about promoting conspiracy theories than reporting news in a March 18 article:
Former U.S. President Barack Obama was caught on camera Monday entering and exiting 10 Downing Street in London, the home of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, sparking questions and theories about the reason for his unannounced visit.
“Why is Obama having private meetings with world leaders?” asked American political activist Laura Loomer.
Loomer later added: “Glad it has now been confirmed that Obama is running the country. Guess Biden was too sick today to make the trip to the UK. His body is shutting down. It’s only a matter of time now.”
Kovacs refused to tell his readers that Loomer is a far-right conspiracy theorist and Islamophobewho cannot be treated as someone credible. Instead, he copied-and-pasted anonymous comments furthering the conspiracy theory:
Reaction to the video includes:
“He no longer trusts Joe Biden … He is handling it himself.”
“Because Obama has never stopped being POTUS. We know he’s pulling the strings with Biden.”
“He has been betraying America like this since Trump was first inaugurated. In fact, we should look upon foreign leaders who took these secret meetings with him as enemies.”
“Lol you really have to ask? The real question is, why are they letting us know it’s happening?”
“Well, if he’s attempting to conduct foreign policy on his own, that would be a violation of the Logan Act, which Mike Flynn was unfairly prosecuted for. Presumably, he’s not doing that. Which means he’s speaking for the government. Then you have to ask, why doesn’t President Biden trust our ambassador to Great Britain to do their job properly? Bottom line, something is screwy somewhere.”
“They have to discuss his 4th term.”
“Yes, I love how people act like this is normal. It’s not.”
“Needs to pick up a certified copy of his forged birth certificate from MI6.”
Kovacs offered no reason why these anonymous haters should be treated as someone who should be listened to. Nor did he mention his employer’s history of Obama derangement, which includes false conspiracy theories about his birth certificate that it has never corrected or apologized for pushing.
Kovacs is one of the few remaining employees WND has. The fact that he is lazily repeating conspiracy theories peddled by untrustworthy people based solely on his employer’s deranged hatred of Obama — as opposed to actual facts — suggests he may not be employable anywhere else.
Farah remained obsessed
WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah is never going to stop being an Obama birther — and he’ll never admit that his birther crusade has been totally debunked and discredited. He was at it again in his Aug. 3 column:
Do you know what today is?
It’s supposedly Barack Obama’s birthday – his 63rd, I think.
Do you recall all of the contention about his birth certificate?
Have you ever seen a birth certificate cause as much controversy?
We here at WND considered it very important. You might want to re-examine some of the articles on the subject in case you missed them. This was “Birth Certificate Central” during the Obama years. It was akin to the only place to find Hunter Biden laptop stories in the New York Post during the 2020 presidential election. Of course, that was before Big Tech ran the internet like the secret police.
Why was it relevant then? Because Obama would become president of the United States, a position that absolutely required him to be a “natural born citizen” according to this nation’s Constitution. Was he? Let’s review a few facts.
He claims he was born in Honolulu in August 1961, to Ann Dunham, a 17-year-old high school student, and Barack Obama Sr., a visiting student from Kenya.
Biographers agree without objection that Dunham moved her son from Hawaii to Seattle within three weeks of his birth. It is doubtful that either a visiting student from Kenya or a minor from Hawaii could confer “natural born” citizenship on their son.
This may seem like small potatoes in a time when this nation is experiencing an invasion of something in excess of 20 million illegal aliens thanks to Joe Biden and his partner in crime, Kamala Harris.
But the controversy back when Obama was first selected by Democrats was anything but small potatoes. It would change America fundamentally.
That was the BIG question, the mystery – which has never been resolved or answered.
If this sounds familiar, it is — Farah plagiarized most of this from a 2021 column he wrote on the occasion of Obama’s birthday that year, right down to the lie that questions about Obama’s birth have “never been resolved or answered.” as we wrote back then, the mere fact that Obama was born in the United States to an American citizen mother makes him a “natural born citizen.” Farah will never admit that, of course, or the fact that the birther stuff was always — always — a partisan political attack, which he proved in 2016 when he gutlessly punted on the issue of whether Ted Cruz was a “natural born citizen” despite the fact that his longstanding assertion of what the phrase meant to him would have disqualified Cruz (his preferred presidential candidate that year), who was born in Canada to a non-citizen father.
Farah then plagiarized his attempt to make his obsession relevant to today: “Of course, since then, the Democrats have run another presidential candidate that stretches the boundaries of the Constitution. Both of Kamala Harris’ parents were foreign born – her mother was an immigrant from India and her father was born in Jamaica.” He didn’t mention Cruz, of course — or that Harris was born in the U.S., thus making her a natural born citizen and the birthplaces of her parents to be irrelevant.
Farah served up even more plagiarism:
All of this was thoroughly documented in WND and in Dr. Jerome Corsi’s No. 1 bestselling book published by WND Books, “Where’s the Birth Certificate?” In fact, it was of significant interest by Donald Trump.
The stories in WND continued for several years, beginning with Obama’s candidacy for president in 2008 until the book hit the No. 1 bestseller ranks and an Obama “birth certificate” was finally produced in April 2011. It’s worth noting that even Democratic Hawaiian Gov. Neil Abercrombie was perplexed at not being able to find a birth certificate or “any slip of paper” designating the birth of Obama.
You may recall that it was the Democrats’ favorite law firm, Perkins Coie, that was assigned the task of defending against Republican challenges to Joe Biden’s “immaculate” election of 2020, that also finally discovered the long lost “birth certificate,” not to mention the discredited Steele Dossier it helped Hillary Clinton produce.
Once again, Farah appears to be lying — we could find no instance outside of Farah’s column in which Abercrombie said he could not find “any slip of paper” designating the birth of Obama. To the contrary, Abercrombie said the certificate existed in the state archives — which was irrelevant anyway because the certificate Obama originally released was a certified state document, and which also means that Perkins Coie did not “discover” the “long lost” birth certificate.
Farah also copy-and-pasted his hype of “Dr. Jerome Corsi’s No. 1 bestselling book published by WND Books, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate?’ In fact, it was of significant interest by Donald Trump.” As before, Farah to discloses the list on which the book was a “No. 1 bestseller.”
Farah even plagiarized the end-of column sneering from the 2021 piece (with the addition of a Kamala reference):
So I guess it’s about time for the big shindig of a 63th birthday party for Barack Obama because he’s still running the show for his faux native land.
You can bet there will be no “birth certificate” jokes – or maybe there will be?
Will Perkins Coie be represented?
Will Joe Biden be attending? Hillary? Kamala?
In honor of that, we’ll copy-and-paste a relevant part of out 2021 debunking: ConWebWartch covered WND’s lies and misinformation about Obama’s birth certificate every step of the way (scroll down for our complete list of articles). Farah has never rebutted or corrected anything we published about it — which means he knows he was lying and that we have the goods. And he is continuing to lie to this very day.
Farah is invited to engage with ConWebWatch and offer hard data to defend WND’s birther obsession. But he hasn’t before, and he likely never will.
Obama as ‘psychopath’
The March issue of WND’s sparsely read Whistleblower magazine was themed the theme “It’s Trump vs. the Swamp Psychopaths.” Managing editor David Kupelian’s essay for the issue, published at WND on March 4, started off by hypocritically rehashing old complaints that Donald Trump was unfavorably likened to Nazis — making sure not to mention ention how enthusiastically his employer likened Obama to various Nazis, or that his boss, Joseph Farah, made the same comparison about President Biden. Kupelian then rehashed old smears by armchair psychologists about Obama:
Let’s rewind a few years and briefly focus on Barack Obama, since much of today’s societal madness began or accelerated because of him, and a great many people believe Obama is calling the shots in Washington, D.C. today. And of course, Obama’s wife Michelle is increasingly considered a top contender for becoming the Democrats’ presidential candidate later this year.
Many Americans believe, and some widely respected voices have said so publicly, that Barack Obama is a “sociopath” or “psychopath.” (For the record, though numerous psychology articles attempt to differentiate between “sociopathy” and “psychopathy,” in the end the analysis always boils down to the two being essentially the same, with “psychopaths” just being a little worse than “sociopaths.”) In 2016, Dr. Ben Carson referred to Obama on camera as a “psychopath.” The aforementioned columnist-author Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training, dubbed Obama a “narcissist” who “talks like the emperor, Napoleon.” Pulitzer prize-winning columnist George Will wrote about “Barack Obama’s intellectual sociopathy.” And so on.
[…]
During the Obama administration, this writer communicated frequently with veteran forensic psychiatrist Lyle Rossiter, M.D., who suggested a slightly different diagnosis for Obama, but similar to “sociopathy” – namely, “Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” The modifier “malignant” signified the version of “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” that may cross over into criminality, he explained.
Rossiter, who has since passed away, had been retained as an expert in more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases and was a genuine world-class authority in forensic psychiatry, which is the intersection between criminal behavior and mental disorders. He carefully reviewed with me a list of some of the major symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, comparing them with Obama’s behavior as president. Here are a few of the key markers: 1) a grandiose view of one’s achievements (everything with Obama was “historic”), 2) an utter inability to handle criticism (everyone criticizing Obama or his policies was attacked as an “extremist” or “racist”), and 3) lack of genuine empathy.
ConWebWatch documented how Rossiter had a habit of taking Obama statements out of context to justify his smears. Kupelian, of course, has no interest in examining Trump’s psyche, even though he has been credibly accused of having sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. This is all about projection, not self-reflection, remember?