Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
RottsRule

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #1 
The Obama File is, without a doubt, the best compilation of information on Obama, in existence. I have referred it to people many, many times over the years. Even left printouts laying around on the tables at work. I should have known this wasn't a 'new' story, yet it has now been picked up by Drudge. Thank you again, Beckwith.
mainemagpie

Registered:
Posts: 100
Reply with quote  #2 
Surely Malik Obama didn't "just" discover this? If he didn't then what is his motive, to get the fake birth certificate narrative back in the news maybe?. If he did then it shows how good the Barry cover up has been.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #3 

Gateway Pundit reports 8-year old story as news -- Lucas Smith's Kenya birth certificate

The birth certificate Gateway Pundit is reporting as a new story and referenced in the previous item is the one that Lucas Smith claims he discovered in Kenya in 2009. He tried to sell it on eBay.

[eBayObamaBirthCertificate] 

Real story and more here . . .

Just one of the reasons The Obama File must endure.

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
RottsRule

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #4 
Malik Obama just tweeted out a copy of Barack Obama's birth certificate from Kenya. Just saw it on Gateway Pundit.
beadaniel

Registered:
Posts: 101
Reply with quote  #5 
It's bait for the right.  Hope they leave it alone for now.
Birther Deluxe

Registered:
Posts: 93
Reply with quote  #6 
So, what was the impetus for this tweet? A little late in the game for Clinton. Why now?
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #7 

Chelsea Clinton tweets on outrageous Birther attacks on Obama

Jim Hoft (GatewayPundit) is reporting that Chelsea Clinton  was quickly reminded her mother's campaign was the source of the Birther movement.

On Saturday she tweeted out her disgust at the "Birther" attacks on Barack Obama during his time in office.

pic363.jpg

Then it started.

pic364.jpg

In September Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign manager admitted the birther rumor was started inside the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Breitbart.com reported:

Patti Solis Doyle, who was Hillary Clinton's campaign manager in 2008 until the Iowa caucuses, admitted on Friday that a Clinton campaign staffer had, in fact, circulated the Birther conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S. and therefore potentially ineligible to serve in the presidency.

Doyle made the admission on Twitter, as she responded to former George W. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer.

pic365.jpg

Doyle appeared about an hour later on CNN with Wolf Blitzer to address the issue once again. She denied that Hillary Clinton had started the Birther theory -- then admitted that someone in the Clinton campaign had, in fact, been involved. Here is part their exchange:

Blitzer: Someone supporting Hillary Clinton was trying to promote this so-called Birther issue? What happened?

Doyle: So we -- absolutely, the campaign nor Hillary did not start the Birther movement, period, end of story there. There was a volunteer coordinator, I believe, in late 2007, I believe, in December, one of our volunteer coordinators in one of the counties in Iowa -- I don't recall whether they were an actual paid staffer, but they did forward an email that promoted the conspiracy.

Blitzer: The Birther conspiracy?

Doyle: Yeah, Hillary made the decision immediately to let that person go. We let that person go. And it was so, beyond the pale, Wolf, and so not worthy of the kind of campaign that certainly Hillary wanted to run.

Hillary's chief campaign strategist spread the nasty rumor in 2007.

The Daily Wire reported:

In 2007, a full year before anyone would know the name Orly Taitz, Hillary's chief campaign strategist Mark Penn would craft a wide-ranging strategy memo that included questioning the very American-ness of then-Senator Barack Obama, who was even then seen as Hillary's chief rival for the nomination.

"I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #8 

Hillary Clinton is "Birther Zero"

pic552.jpg

New analysis from the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton. Using his wayback machine on Wednesday, the Post‘s David Weigel took an in-depth look at the origins of the false rumors that President Obama is a practicing Muslim who was not born in a America. Weigel’s reporting contains the final pieces of a very disturbing puzzle.

What Weigel found and re-reported was astounding, details many of us had forgotten or never heard of, including a 2007 bombshell memo from the Clinton campaign’s chief strategist.

What the left-wing Weigel left out of his reporting was even more astounding, including a documented confrontation between Clinton and Obama over the Birther issue, and video of Hillary herself stoking doubt about Obama’s Christian faith.

Because the Washington Post‘s primary job  is to protect Democrats, Weigel’s headline and conclusion are an objective lie. Despite the fact that what he uncovered (and chose to not cover) points directly to Ms. Clinton and her campaign, Weigel concludes she had nothing to do with the Birther movement.

Naturally, Weigel’s own facts support the exact opposite conclusion.

His research, however, is all that matters.

Defcon 4: Mark Penn’s March 2007 Strategy Memo

Everything began in March of 2007 when Hillary’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, wrote a now-infamous campaign memo laying out his overall plan to win the election.

Weigel sums up the Birther elements of Penn’s memo as a nothingburger; indeed, according to Weigel, the memo actually proves that the Clinton campaign wanted nothing to do with Birtherism: “But Penn wrote that as a warning, not a strategy,” Weigel writes.

While most of Weigel’s lies in his defense of Clinton are of omission and deflection, the wrist-flicking of Penn’s memo is pure audacity.

Because this is important, I’m not asking anyone to believe my interpretation of the memo. You can read the memo for yourself here. Below are two mainstream media sources. [emphasis added] As you’ll see, the idea that the memo was a warning against “othering” Obama is preposterous:

The Atlantic:

[Penn] wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

Bloomberg

The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election—and to Democrats. … Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it. … Penn wrote: … “[H]is roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.”

Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].”

Bloomberg adds: “Penn was not a birther.”

His memo didn’t raise the issue of Obama’s citizenship. Furthermore, he was acutely aware of the political danger that a Democrat would court by going after Obama in this way, even subliminally: “We are never going to say anything about his background,” he wrote.

That is what the memo said. The truth, though, is that the attacks on Obama’s background would come the following year, and those attacks would not only come from Hillary’s supporters but directly from her own campaign and her own mouth during a nationally televised 60 Minutes interview.

In March of 2007, the campaign could afford to attack Obama’s otherness “subliminally.”

By the following year, as the primary losses mounted, the gloves came completely off.

Defcon 3: Hillary Clinton and Her Supporters Birth ‘Birtherism’

Weigel’s superb reporting uncovered how the Clinton campaign and legions of diehard Clinton supporters took Penn’s othering campaign and the questions surrounding Obama’s faith and birthplace to the next level.

It was no longer subliminal.

By now Clinton’s 2008 presidential aspirations were in serious jeopardy. Pay special attention to what Weigel writes about John Heilemann. Weigel’s lie of omission here is crucial and I’ll address it below:  [emphasis added]

According to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in Game Change, the most ludicrous “othering” theory that Clinton allies engaged in was that a tape existed, somewhere, of Michelle Obama denouncing “whitey” — and that Clinton herself believed it when consigliere Sid Blumenthal talked about it.

But the Clinton campaign never pursued the idea that Obama was literally not American, and therefore ineligible for the presidency. A small group of hardcore Clinton supporters did. Specifically, anyone reading the fringe Web in the summer of 2008 could find the now-defunct blog called TexasDarlin, the now-defunct blog PUMAParty, and the now-conservative blog HillBuzz posting updates on the hunt for a birth certificate. It was a thin reed, and they knew it.

“It looks like Obama was born in Hawaii, based on a recently discovered birth announcement found in a Hawaiian newspaper,” one HillBuzz blogger wrote in July 2008. “It also looks like the reason Obama refuses to produce his actual birth certificate is that it very likely records dual Kenyan and U.S.  citizenship at Obama’s birth.”

Weigel’s sleight of hand here is genius. Let’s unpack the lies of omission.

1. Weigel uses Bloomberg’s John Heilemann as a witness for the defense of Hillary but intentionally chooses not to tell his readers that a mere two days earlier, on Monday, Heilemann confirmed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that the Birther movement began with the Clinton campaign.

Again, I’m going to quote a left-wing source:

Host Joe Scarborough called Clinton’s attack on Trump “rich,” saying, “For Hillary Clinton to come out and criticize anybody for spreading the rumors about Barack Obama, when it all started … with her and her campaign passing things around in the Democratic primary[.] … This started with Hillary Clinton, and it was spread by the Clinton team in 2008.” …

Heilemann, author of the insider account of the 2008 election Game Change, said it was the case that Clinton spread the rumors. “It was the case,” he said. “I’m affirming the Scarborough-Brzezinski assertion.”

2. Weigel also chose not to report:

It was not until April 2008, at the height of the intensely bitter Democratic presidential primary process, that the touch paper was properly lit.

An anonymous email circulated by supporters of Mrs. Clinton, Mr Obama’s main rival for the party’s nomination, thrust a new allegation into the national spotlight — that he had not been born in Hawaii.

3. Pretending to be naïve, Weigel uses these third party Democrat attacks on Obama’s identity as proof! that Hillary’s hands are clean, you know, because it’s her supporters raising the conspiracy, and not Hillary.

Apparently, it’s only Republicans who are held accountable for the actions of their supporters.

Apparently, only Republicans are capable of coordinating with outside groups to do their dirty work.

Despite more smoke than you’ll find in Jeff Spicoli’s van, Weigel uses that smoke as proof that there is no fire. This isn’t journalism, it’s desperate partisan spin.

4. Weigel says nothing about the Clinton campaign’s shattering silence during this smear campaign.

5. Weigel doesn’t want his readers to know that Barack Obama himself believes Hillary Clinton started the Birther rumors, even though this fact was reported by no less than Weigel’s own employer at The Washington Post:

Obama and Clinton were both at Reagan National Airport on their way to Iowa for a [2007] debate, and the candidates met on the tarmac for what became a brief but heated conversation. Then-Obama personal aide Reggie Love witnessed the event and describes it in his new memoir:

[Obama] very respectfully told her the apology was kind, but largely meaningless, given the emails it was rumored her camp had been sending out labeling him as a Muslim. Before he could finish his sentence, she exploded on Obama. In a matter of seconds, she went from composed to furious. It had not been Obama’s intention to upset her, but he wasn’t going to play the fool either.

Why Weigel chose to leave all of this crucial information out is obvious.

Defcon 2: The Clinton Campaign’s Obama-Is-a-Scary-Muslim Emails

Weigel writes: “In December 2007, a Clinton campaign worker named Judy Rose sent an e-mail asking whether Obama was a secret Muslim who intended to destroy America from the inside. She was fired and denounced.”

Here’s what Weigel doesn’t tell his readers:

  1. The email wasn’t meant for public consumption. It was an internal email sent to just a handful of Democrats.
  2. Rose was only fired after the media discovered the email.
  3. Rose wasn’t merely a “Clinton campaign worker,” she was the volunteer chair of the Clinton campaign in Jones County, Iowa.
  4. A second Clinton staffer resigned just a few days later for the same offense.
  5. The emails were sent just a little more than a month before the crucial January of 2008 Iowa Caucus, which Hillary lost.

Defcon 1: The Obama-In-a-Turban Photo

Weigel writes: “Three months later, when the Drudge Report claimed that a photo of Obama wearing a turban was sent from “stressed Clinton staffers,” the Clinton campaign denounced it but didn’t find a scalp.”

This is Weigel glossing over one of the most crucial elements in Hillary’s Birther campaign. Here is the photo in question…

0225_obamaturban_460x276

…and Weigel not only buries and downplays this seismic campaign moment in the middle of a paragraph; laughably, his witness in defense of Hillary is the Hillary Clinton campaign. Because they couldn’t find who did it — “a scalp” — we’re asked to conclude that the campaign is innocent.

Here’s what Weigel doesn’t tell his readers:

1. The Obama campaign believes the photo came from the Clinton campaign.

Another left-wing source:

Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, described it as “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election”. Obama has had to spend much of the campaign stressing he is a Christian not a Muslim and did not study at a madrassa. …

Plouffe described circulation of the picture as part of “a disturbing pattern.” “It’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties,” he said.

2. Again, Weigel ignores crucial information published by one of his own employers, in this case his former-employer Slate.

After the Drudge splash, Plouffe released the statement above condemning the Clinton campaign at 9:29 am. Less than two hours later, Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams shot back with a response that, as Slate notes, “never refuted Drudge’s piece.”

Then, at 10:54 a.m., Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, pierced the quiet with her own release. “Enough,” she wrote. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed.   Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.” She goes on to say Obama is trying to “distract from the serious issues.” Note that they never refuted Drudge’s piece. (More detail on that piece of the story is trickling in .)

Let’s take a moment to review: Obama’s campaign thinks Clinton is trying to be divisive by encouraging the Obama-is-a-Muslim myth. Clinton’s campaign thinks the Obama campaign is being divisive because it thinks Clinton’s campaign is being divisive.

The Clinton campaign would eventually deny sending the photo, but only after it became obvious that the release of the photo was blowing up in their face.

Mushroom Cloud: Hillary’s “As far as I know,” or Weigel’s ‘Big Lie’ of Omission

In his attempt to let Hillary off the hook, it is imperative that Weigel not remind his readers that in March of 2008, in the middle of her campaign’s Birthernado, and on no less than 60 Minutes, Hillary herself stoked the Birther rumors.

Obama is not a Muslim “as far as I know,” Clinton told Steve Kroft.

Hillary Clinton Is Birther Zero

My singling out of Weigel is a bit unfair. But it was his reporting that put the final details into place. And what he’s attempting to do is what most of the mainstream media is attempting to do: protect Hillary from her own racist past with half-truths and the omission of facts.

Once you do what the mainstream media refuses: put all the facts together as I did here, only those who don’t believe in science would let Hillary off the hook.

Here are the facts:

  1. More than a full year before anyone would hear of Orly Taitz, the Birther strategy was first laid out in the Penn memo.
  2. The “othering” foundation was built subliminally by the Clinton campaign itself.
  3. Democrats and Clinton campaign surrogates did the dirtiest of the dirty work: openly spread the Birther lies.
  4. Staffers in Hillary’s actual campaign used email to spread the lies among other Democrats (this was a Democrat primary after all — so that is the only well you needed to poison a month before a primary).
  5. The campaign released the turban photo.
  6. Hillary herself used 60 Minutes to further stoke these lies.

Of course Hillary Clinton is the grandmother of the Birther Movement. But now that she might be the only thing between a Republican and the White House, Dave Weigel’s reverting back to JournoList form, as is the rest of the media.

Even former Clinton Campaign Manager Patti Solis Doyle admitted today on CNN a Clinton campaign worker originated the story about Obama:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #9 

Talking head is stunned when told Hillary started the "Birther" movement

Aleister (ProgressivesToday) is reporting that it's well established that questions about Obama's birthplace and whether he was/is a Muslim began in the Clinton campaign when things got ugly during the 2008 Democratic primary. Now the media is pretending that never happened.

A Republican from John Kasich's campaign was recently on CNN and the reporter tried to bait him into bashing Donald Trump but he correctly pointed out the facts and the reporter was stunned.

Donald Trump has found himself in hot water trying to answer questions about the "Birther" movement that the liberal media claims he started in an effort to prove that Barack Obama wasn't born in the United States. Most notably, he was hassled by Stephen Colbert on the supremely not funny Late Show.

Several outlets have reported that Trump actually wasn't the one who started the rumor after all, but the Hillary campaign. The Washington Post confirmed those reports and now it can be said with absolute certainty that our dear friend Hillary Clinton was actually the one who ignited the birther idea.

From Breitbart:

New analysis from the Washington Post removes any doubt that the anti-Obama Birther movement was started in 2007 and 2008 by Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and her Democrat supporters.

As Breitbart News reported earlier this month, other left-wing media outlets, like Politico and the Guardian, had  already traced the Birther movement back to Democrats and Ms. Clinton. Using his wayback machine on Wednesday, the Post's David Weigel took an in-depth look at the origins of the rumors that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim who was not born in a America. Weigel's reporting contains the final pieces of a very disturbing puzzle.

What Weigel found and re-reported was astounding, details many of us had forgotten or never heard of, including a 2007 bombshell memo from the Clinton campaign's chief strategist.

Here are the facts:

  1. More than a full year before anyone would hear of Orly Taitz, the Birther strategy was first laid out in the Penn memo.
  2. The "othering" foundation was built subliminally by the Clinton campaign itself.
  3. Democrats and Clinton campaign surrogates did the dirtiest of the dirty work. They openly spread the "Birther" rumors.
  4. Staffers in Hillary's actual campaign used email to spread the rumors among other Democrats (this was a Democrat primary after all -- so that is the only well you needed to poison a month before a primary).
  5. The campaign released the turban photo.
  6. Hillary herself used "60 Minutes" to further stoke these lies.

Read the rest of the article here.

Breitbart's John Nolte beautifully lays out the reality that Hillary Clinton is absolutely responsible for breathing life into the rumor that Obama is a secret Muslim that wasn't born in America.

From the beginning, Donald Trump should have put the blame on Hillary rather than dodge the question and refuse to talk about it like he has done up until very recently.

One of the most annoying and nonsensical attacks that has been constantly levied against Republicans is that they won't support anything Obama does just because he is black.  The Left uses the whole Birther movement as "proof" that Republicans are racist.

The next time you hear a liberal rambling on and on about how Republicans all think Obama is Muslim, give them a little reminder that Hillary Clinton was the one stoking the racial flames before Donald Trump even opened his mouth about the subject.  It was the Democrats who came up with the plan to pit races and religions against each other to gain votes, not the Republicans.

Question 1:  If Obama was born in Hawaii, why is it that the Kapiolani Hospital -- to this day -- refuses to acknowledge that Barack Obama was born in their facility -- as Obama's counterfeit birth certificate states?

Question 2:  Obama's half-sister told the New York Times that her "whole family was a Muslim." Even so, if Obama is/was not a practicing Muslim, he is certainly a "cultural" Muslim. However, the one thing that has always puzzled me is how was it possible for Obama to remember the Shahada -- in "perfect" Arabic -- for 36 the years after he left Indonesia?

To this day, there is much we don't know about Barack Obama, and that's why Obama's life records have been fabricated, altered, hidden, and/or destroyed.

It's up to historians to uncover the facts of Obama's life, and this won't happen until he is long out of office and out of power.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #10 

Ken Burns equates the Birther movement with "saying the N-word"

Liberal historian Ken Burns told the hate website Salon Donald Trump's Birtherism accusations in 2011 was a "politer way to say the n-word."

On CBS’s Face the Nation, documentary filmmaker Ken Burns -- most famous for his 1990 television miniseries, The Civil War -- had some rather harsh things to say about the Birther movement Donald Trump has inadvertently became associated with.

Ken Burns is not a "historian."

He is a leftist propagandist who conveniently overlooks the historical fact that the Democrat Party was the party of slavery and the Ku Klux Klan was/is the terrorist wing of the Democrat Party.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
CAPTAINMACK

Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #11 
Exactly what does Carney think a seventeen trillion dollar debt is doing to the American people and untold generations to come. Wouldn't it be astounding if just one of these Obots would just for once think about what they were going to say before engaging their mouth?
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #12 

Carney says GOP debt ceiling wish list like "Birther bill"

Reid J. Epstein is reporting that White House press secretary Jay Carney mocked Republican demands that their agenda be considered as part of talks to raise the debt ceiling, saying the GOP proposals were missing only legislation questioning the president's birthplace.

Carney dismissed suggestion that the White House discuss the Keystone XL pipeline or other items on the GOP wish list that have been floated as concessions Republicans would seek from White House would make in exchange for a debt ceiling increase.

"The only thing I didn’t see on it was a Birther bill attached to it," Carney said.

Carney said it is Republicans’ "constitutional responsibility" to raise the debt ceiling and he said the White House will not give ground on the debt ceiling talks.

"The debt ceiling has to be raised," he said. "It is not a concession to anybody to do that. It is not a concession to Republicans to do their constitutionally mandated job. … We should not hold the American people hostage."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #13 

Asking Obama tough questions makes you a Birther

Timothy P. Carney is reporting that Barack Obama in 2010 signed a law requiring large employers to offer health insurance to their employees.  Earlier this Summer, Obama announced his administration wasn’t going to require large employers to offer health insurance to their employees.

Perhaps there is some explanation why it’s okay for Obama to do this. But if you ask Obama for that explanation, he gets pretty pissed at you. Here’s what Obama said when a New York Times reporter asked:

If Congress thinks that what I’ve done is inappropriate or wrong in some fashion, they’re free to make that case. But there’s not an action that I take that you don’t have some folks in Congress who say that I’m usurping my authority. Some of those folks think I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency.

Got that? Question his legal authority to ignore a law, get called a Birther. It’s charming. Dave Weigel at Slate points out that Jay Carney also dodged. As Weigel aptly put it, "None of these were answers. They were expressions of contempt."

And it’s not insane to think Obama would overreach his executive authority. For instance, his IRS tried to unilaterally impose regulations on tax preparers, while lacking the statutory authority. He entered into a war in Libya without congressional authorization. He appointed a handful of lobbyists to policymaking jobs in apparent violation of his own executive order. Et cetera, et cetera….

So, why does Obama respond so derisively to these questions? Does he honestly believe it’s out of line to ask for the legal justification of his unilateral actions? Or does he just see an advantage in maximizing the costs of asking him?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #14 

Yahoo! News goes Birther

If it's on Yahoo! News, it must be true!

It's what all of these reliable sources say, as well.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #15 
Natural Born Citizen - born in US (jurisdiction) to Citizen parents, not necessarily NBC parents.  The oath of Naturalization should be strong enough and enforced to dissolve any previous allegiance. In Obama's case neither parent had any allegiance to the US, infact quite the opposite. Nor did any of the other adults that had influence on him growing up. All were socialist Progressives, if not outright Communists, and anti-Christian atheists or Muslims. His revered father was a Muslim turned atheist and a Communist.
Lou E Brown

Registered:
Posts: 516
Reply with quote  #16 
It has been clear to me from the beginning of my acquaintance with this site, The Obama File. Things that were on there when I first started to read it long ago disappeared, but after my early fear of daring to think 'treason' and seeing that the Halfrican was not one of us I was bolder and did more reading and research. It was soon clear to me that the Halfrican was not a Natural Born Citizen because of the father thing. That was the whole ball of wax to me and anyone who could read and comprehend the clear meaning of NBC: born to two Native American citizens, not native as American Indian, but born on US Soil themselves the parents, and having no prior or divided loyalties. He could have been born in the belfry of the Lincoln Memorial,or on the steps, or in Lincoln's lap and he would still never be NBC because his father was Kenyan/British. So, I reckoned that if such were the case, why was it so dam**d difficult to tell him he could not be King of America. I feared that his father would suddenly be Malcolm X or Farrakhan or some such real American, white or nonwhite. I still cannot forthe life of me see why he was not refused the ballot, exept that, being an honest sort of person, I would not lie about much of anything, and surely not something so vital. Now we are reaping the whirlwind because those who would lie for their chosen result had already sown the wind.  Only now will the grace of God save us from what Obama and his pet seals have done...oh, and since he is now the pet seal of all who own him, I wonder how his act is going over. There has got to be the hand of God preparing someone, Dr. Carson perhaps? to step into the whirldwind with us.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #17 

NPR's Betsy Liley openly admits Obama birth cover-up

Tim Brown is reporting that Senior Director of Institutional Giving for NPR Betsy Liley said it is still a question of whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States. She clearly is heard talking about a coverup, keeping the Birther issue out of the news because it was "political" and even indicating that there was monkey business going on in Hawaii concerning Obama's birth certificate. Listen to the brief audio below -- not the best quality -- and see for yourself.

Birthers are not just on the right. There are clearly Birthers on the left, they just want to cover up the truth.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #18 
It's about Obama's eligibility -- not his citizenship. He's not eligible because, at birth, he was a subject of Great Britain and a Kenyan citizen.

That is the most important thing anyone has ever said on the subject...  and NOT MANY PEOPLE EVEN TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT...  let alone really do....  Obama is INELIGIBLE because he was born to (and accepted on paper as the Father, the Fake BC and the Divorce papers filed by Stanley Ann Dunham from said Kenyan) a Kenyan-British Colonial who was NEVER A CITIZEN OF THE USA by any means - he was here on a STUDENT VISA and that does NOT GRANT CITIZENSHIP.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #19 

Birthers aren't going anywhere

Adam Berinsky, a (real) Professor of Political Science at MIT, says throughout the year  I have been tracking beliefs about Barack Obama’s citizenship (see here and here). From September 15-17, 2012, YouGov again surveyed 1000 Americans and asked whether “Barack Obama was born in the United States of America.” In the table below, I present these results, alongside the polls that I presented in my earlier posts.

"Barack Obama was born in the United States": Full Sample
 April 2011January 2012July 2012Sept 2012
Before release of birth certificateAfter release of birth certificate   
    
True55%67%59%55%59%
False15%13%17%20%21%
Not sure30%20%24%25%19%

These polls demonstrate the hint of some movement toward the belief that Obama was born in the United States. However the percentage of people who think that Obama was not born in the United States has held steady throughout the year, and perhaps even increased slightly.

As I noted in earlier posts, the incidence of Birtherism is especially pronounced among Republicans. A plurality of Republicans believes that Obama was not born in the United States. Indeed the level of Birtherism among Republicans is the highest it has been this year.

"Barack Obama was born in the United States": Republicans Only
 April 2011January 2012July 2012Sept 2012
Before release of birth certificateAfter release of birth certificate   
    
True30%47%27%31%27%
False25%23%37%33%39%
Not sure45%29%35%36%34%

Yo! Perfesser!  It's about Obama's eligibility -- not his citizenship.  He's not eligible because, at birth, he was a subject of Great Britain and a Kenyan citizen.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #20 

Rush Limbaugh loves Romney "birth certificate" quip

Mytheos Holt says while most of the media was busy hyperventilating over Mitt Romney’s joke that "nobody’s ever asked to see my birth certificate," Rush Limbaugh was cracking up on today’s show.
  
"Right on, right on, right on!" Limbaugh crowed after playing the clip twice.
 
Why was Limbaugh so excited? Not because of any lingering sentiment for Birthers, but rather because, to use his phrasing, the clip indicated that Romney may be "test-driving" an aggressively anti-Obama message, just in time for the Republican National Convention next week. To hear Limbaugh tell it, that convention is likely to seize that gloves-off message with purposeful vigor.
 
"Then Romney gets up to the microphone, it’s his turn to speak, and he test-drives that line about nobody’s ever had to ask to see his birth certificate," Limbaugh said. "I’m gonna tell you what. You know, I’m gonna make a prediction for you. It’s gonna be fascinating to watch. The Obama bashing at the Republican convention is gonna be delicious. It’s gonna be five-star restaurant type stuff. I mean, you are gonna loooove it. You are going to eat it up, all the Obama bashing. And I‘ll bet you what’s happening now is the networks are trying to figure out how they can avoid airing any of it, but it’s gonna be tough."
 
From a conservative perspective, this is right on, right on, right on, indeed. Listen to Limbaugh‘s triumphant response to Romney’s joke below, courtesy of Mediaite:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #21 

"America doesn't need a birther-in-chief"

Joseph Farrah says in rapid response to Mitt Romney’s joke to a crowd in his home state of Michigan, that "No one ever asked me for my birth certificate," Barack Obama’s campaign put out a 15-second TV spot to declare, "America doesn’t need a birther-in-chief."

I’ve finally found a point of agreement with Obama.
 
America certainly does not need a "birther-in-chief" -- which is one of at least 2,012 reasons to dump Barack Obama from the White House on Election Day.
 
America already has a "birther-in-chief." His name is Barack Obama.
 
Who started the controversy over his identity? He did. For at least 17 years he boasted in his literary biography of being born in Kenya. That claim was quietly withdrawn only in 2007 -- less than a year before he declared his candidacy for the presidency. It was never repudiated or explained. His own wife referred to Kenya as his home country. His autobiography claims he is the offspring of two parents, neither of which could bestow upon him the constitutional requirement of "natural born citizenship." When repeatedly asked for years into his presidency to produce his birth certificate, he released a document every expert who has looked at it agrees is fraudulent -- including the one and only law enforcement investigation to examine the evidence.
 
No one else besides Barack Obama can claim credit for the title "birther-in-chief." He owns it. He prompted the very term. He sustained it needlessly. And then he blames others for his own absolute unwillingness to provide the most rudimentary documentation of his eligibility for office.
 
I’m gratified Mitt Romney told that joke.
 
I’m only sorry he apologized for it later.
 
Because the Constitution is not a laughing matter -- or it shouldn’t be.
 
It’s Obama who has made it such.
 
He has demonstrated over and over again that he has nothing but contempt for the Constitution. And then his own amen-corner feigns righteous indignation that we shouldn’t accept on faith his unsubstantiated claims to constitutional eligibility for office.
 
One of the things I would like you to notice is the crowd reaction Romney got to his little joke.
 
It was enthusiastic. They weren’t just laughing. They were applauding. They were thinking, "It’s about time Romney brought this up." Everyone in America knew exactly what he meant. Why is that? Why is Obama’s birth certificate one of the biggest sources of controversy and humor after nearly four years in office?
 
I’ll tell you why: Because Americans know Obama’s hiding virtually all documentation about his true identity.
 
Only the media elite don’t seem to understand the obvious -- because of their collective failure to honestly investigate what could prove to be a story bigger than Watergate and the Teapot Dome scandal combined. And the news media don’t even appreciate any jokes that reflect on their ineptitude and calculated cover-up of the truth.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Mitt Romney get a nice bump in the pre-convention polls as a result of his birth certificate challenge.
 
Fundamental issues like constitutional qualifications are important to Americans -- and they know they’ve been snookered in the case of Barack Obama.

Obama’s true life story is as much a mystery today as it was in 2008. His story doesn’t add up. His arrogant, steadfast unwillingness to release virtually any documentation -- from a legitimate birth certificate to his school records to his travel papers to his health reports and more -- makes it clear to thinking Americans that something’s not right here. All that smoke suggests a fire. Only the darlings of the media elite are too dumb, too guilty of complicity or too self-interested to admit the obvious.
 
Romney should keep poking them all in the eye by telling that "joke."

That "joke" isn't a "joke" when Michelle says Obama's a Kenyan:

During a fundraiser in Tampa in December 2007, wife, Michelle, in this video, discussed how hard it was for her and her husband to pay off student loans from "good schools," Michelle Obama said the following:

"What it reminded me of was our trip to Africa, two years ago, and the level of excitement that we felt in that country -- the hope that people saw just in the sheer presence of somebody like Barack Obama -- a Kenyan, a black man, a man of great statesmanship who they believe could change the fate of the world."

The reference to "Kenyan" starts about 2:05 minutes into the video. Use the slider.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #22 

Team Obama outsmarts themselves


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #23 

Obots out-clever themselves


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #24 

Maraniss bio deepens Obama birth mystery

Jack Cashill says David Maraniss has no use for "birthers."  In a recent interview, he dismissed their beliefs as "preposterous" and wonders why they cling to them, since "every fact and document leads in another direction."
 
Yet the one core belief that has united the birther community -- if there be such a thing -- is that Obama dissembled when he talked at both the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Conventions about his parents' "improbable love" and "abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation."
 
Birthers have known for years that there was no Obama family, that the couple never lived together, that Obama campaigned on a lie, and that the major media covered for him every step of the way.  This, ironically, Maraniss confirms in Barack Obama: The Story, a book that has to be parsed as carefully as the Talmud or Finnegan's Wake to be made sense of.  Despite his slam on birthers, the facts herein will come as more of a shock to the Obama faithful than to those who have questioned the official birth narrative.
 
"In the college life of Barack Obama [Senior] in 1961 and 1962," writes Maraniss, "as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby."  Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.'s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama's mother, Ann Dunham.
 
One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama "very well."  He had also met Ann through a different channel.  "But he had no idea," writes Maraniss, "that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him."
 
Having established the facts, Maraniss turns protective.  He refuses to explore the implications of his own reporting.  The most consequential is that Obama grounded his 2008 campaign -- his very persona, for that matter -- on a family story that was pure fraud.  Lyndon Johnson's masterful biographer, Robert Caro, would never let his subject walk away from such a lie unscathed.
 
The casual reader of the Maraniss book is left with the impression that Ann and Obama had a one-night stand that they both regretted, but that they consented to marriage because that is what people did back in 1961.  The more informed reader wonders whether Barack Obama, Sr. was fronting for the real father, the best candidate being Obama's future mentor, Frank Marshall Davis.  Maraniss opens the door on both possibilities but fails to even peek through.
 
As to the presumed February 1961 wedding, the usually thorough Maraniss offers no detail at all.  His endnotes say only this: "Marriage facts recorded in divorce records."  To be sure, Ann and Obama claimed a wedding.  It suited both their purposes: Obama to extend his visa, and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.
 
As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband Lolo Soetoro in the country.  The INS believed her to be married to Obama.  Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.  Maraniss explains none of this.
 
Like all other mainstream biographers of the Obama family, Maraniss tells us not a single word about Ann's life in the six months between the February wedding and Obama's August 1961 birth.  Given the controversy surrounding Obama's place of birth, Maraniss should have commented on a void of this duration, and he knows it.
 
Later, when discussing Obama's murky New York years, he opines, "Nothing is so tempting for conspiracy theorists as what appears to be a hole in a life."  Maraniss attempts to flesh out the New York years.  He makes no effort to fill this critical hole in Ann's life.
 
On the subject of the birth, the usually voluble Maraniss is as tight-lipped as he is on the wedding.  He reports that Obama was born at 7:24 in the evening of August 4, 1961 at Kapi'olani Hospital.  As reference, he cites "State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth," presumably the unverified document posted online last April.
 
In the way of confirmation, Maraniss offers only one story -- an elaborate one that he takes two pages to tell.  It comes down to this: a woman is having lunch shortly after Obama's birth with an OB/GYN, who tells her, "Stanley had a baby.  Now that's something to write home about."
 
The woman, Barbara Czurles-Nelson, has been telling this story for several years.  Maraniss adds the clarification that the doctor in question was not the one who delivered the baby, as first reported, but someone who had heard the "Stanley" anecdote on the grapevine.
 
One serious flaw in Maraniss's reporting is that he gives too much credence to obviously inflated memories.  A glaring example, one that has been cited often as fact, is of the paper Obama allegedly wrote as a schoolboy in Indonesia in which he said, "Someday I want to be president."
 
Maraniss quotes the entire, seemingly impressive paper, both in English and in the Indonesian language, Bahasa.  He then adds, "The paper no longer exists, though [the teacher's] memory is precise and there is no reason not to trust it."  No, David, there is every reason not to trust it.
 
Czurles-Nelson also remembers her story much too well.  In the gratuitously lengthy account of the "Stanley" anecdote, the reader learns, for instance, that 50 years earlier, Czurles-Nelson and the doctor were sitting "near the lunch buffet."  This is the kind of confirming detail Maraniss likes to provide.
 
All the stranger, then, is his failure to provide a single shred of information regarding the circumstances surrounding Obama's birth.  The reader has no idea who took Ann to the hospital, who delivered her baby, who took her home, or even where "home" was.
 
Maraniss hints at where home was not -- namely, the residence her parents shared with the Pratt family at 6085 Kalanianole Highway, the address listed on the birth certificate.  As Maraniss relates, the Pratt daughter, then an adolescent, "has no memory of the Dunhams' daughter bringing an infant home."  He adds, "[Ann] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole]."
 
Indeed, the young family never lived together, and this Maraniss concedes.  "Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital," he writes, "he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland ... ."  They had decamped for Seattle, where they would live for the next year.
 
Maraniss interviewed not a single person who saw the newborn in Hawaii.  It is likely that Obama Sr. never saw young Barry.  Barry Obama's first sighting was in Seattle.  Maraniss tells us nothing about how Ann and the baby got there.
 
In the blogosphere, these revelations do not comes as news.  In the mainstream media, however, they must stun.  In their respective biographies of Obama and his family, all published 2010 or later, the New Yorker's David Remnick, the Boston Globe's Sally Jacobs, and the New York Times's Janny Scott and Jodi Kantor each consciously skirted the facts to sustain the illusion of a functioning Obama family.  More troubling, conservative writer Dinesh D'Souza did the same in his disingenuous 2010 bestseller, The Roots of Obama's Rage.
 
As recently as Father's Day 2012, Obama was telling America's schoolchildren that his father "left when I was two years old."  The media let him get away with it.  Is it any wonder that birthers don't take their criticisms too seriously?
 
Maraniss debunks this fraudulent birth narrative much too quietly.  Perhaps he feels guilty about contributing to it himself.  He wrote a 10,000-word Obama bio for the Washington Post in August 2008, and he made a total botch out of the birth narrative.  Had he gotten the story straight then, he might have turned the election.

I read these reports with amazement.  Everything in the above has been in The Obama File since 2008 -- 2009 at the latest -- but the take-away from this article is that after five years, the fundamental elements of Obama's life remain unknown -- a truely stunning fact.

 

However, I am delighted that Obama's completely false history is finally finding its way into America's consciousness -- better late than never.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #25 

Lord of the Skeptics

Cindy Simpson asks is you saw this extraordinary headline recently?  Prominent foreign statesman claims posted birth certificate of the President of the United States probable digital forgery.
 
Just kidding.  Not about the content of that headline -- it's real.  And surely such an event would be newsworthy.  But the fact is, there was never such an article printed or words uttered by the mainstream media.
 
Lord Christopher Monckton was the guest speaker at a recent meeting of California's Ventura County Tea Party.  He addressed, in great detail, his opinion on the validity of Obama's long-form birth certificate presented by the White House.  Monckton conducted a similar discussion a few days earlier at an Arizona Tea Party rally.
 
Except for a few Tea Party and conservative websites, and the tenacious WND, there was no mainstream coverage of either event.  (Unless you count this Daily Kos piece discussing "racist Birther crapola," "white geriatric tea party loonies," and a "leading climate doofus.")
 
Perhaps JournoLister David Weigel somehow missed hearing about Monckton's speeches, or he would have coined, along with the notorious term "Birther" and his latest "Obama Love Letter Truthers," a clever new title for Monckton, such as "Lord of the Birthers."  But likely, he and the rest of his ilk did catch wind of the events, and rather than report on them, swept Monckton's presentations under the rug of the preferred Obama narrative.  Because it might be too risky, even while holding noses and calling the whole affair "Birther nonsense," for viewers or readers to notice that Monckton's opinion was also supported by a serious investigation by a posse of credible experts led by "America's Toughest Sheriff."
 
In the community of global warming skeptics, Lord Monckton is legendary.  With his background in the newspaper industry and exceptional communications skills, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often targeted as a prominent "heretic" of the man-made climate change movement.
 
A couple of months ago, on Dennis Miller's radio show, Lord Monckton asserted that he was no "Birther," but that "the birth certificate issue was far more important than combatting so-called anthropogenic global warming."
 
After watching the Tea Party presentation, it is difficult to throw out Monckton's reasoned, logical explanations and observations as the ravings of a tin-foil hat-wearer or the rantings of a racist.  But a few days prior, when Monckton attempted to patiently explain his position to Geraldo Rivera on Rivera's radio program, Rivera seemed to find it impossible to respect either his guest's opinion or his guest himself, accusing Lord Monckton (in between interruptions, snorts, and snickers) of "smoking crack."
 
Channeling the same sarcastic creativity as Weigel did, Huffington Post's Bill McKibben dubbed Monckton a "member of a certified crew of planet wreckers" in his scathing article on the stupidity of "climate change deniers."
 
Back in 2008, the Obama campaign used similar tactics against Stanley Kurtz, who asserted (and recently further confirmed) that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, labeling Kurtz's claims a "crackpot smear."
 
Whenever inconvenient facts don't fit the desired narrative, out come the nasty names.  Skeptics are called things like "Birthers, baggers and blowhards," "love letter truthers," racists, extremists, "transcripters," "planet wreckers," flat-earthers, deniers, crack-smokers, and crackpots -- in order to mock, ridicule, and shut them up, Alinsky-style.
 
My last column addressed the taboo surrounding discussion of Obama's morphing biography.  I speculated that Weigel and his fellow JournoListers might have had something to do with orchestrating the media spin and blackout of all things "Birther" beginning back in 2008.  Weigel's response to the column was this tweet: "If someone owns a patent on the word 'thinker,' he should press charges against this site."
 
Weigel penned a similar response to author Jack Cashill's recent inquiries.  Cashill, famous for deconstructing the myth that Obama wrote his own autobiography, challenged David Maraniss, author of the new book, Obama: The Story, for proof of the legitimacy of the Obama love letters that Maraniss disclosed in his Vanity Fair article.  According to Weigel, Maraniss responded: "[Cashill's theory] is preposterous on its face," etc.  Instead of pressing Maraniss for actual answers, Weigel spent his energies creating a new label for those who dared to ask the questions: "Love Letter Truthers."
 
The only major media to cover Kurtz's 2008 revelation of Obama's New Party membership was Politico via Ben Smith (now editing Buzzfeed), who simply "dismissed it out of hand."  Breitbart's John Nolte coined a new word of his own to describe Smith's technique:

This is classic BenSmithing -- in which he takes on a controversial subject that might damage Obama, pretends to play investigative journalist, assumes the role of the writer of a "definitive" piece that finally answers all the questions, and then sends the story to sleep with the fishes. 

But it seems that Lord Monckton's speeches, as well as Sheriff Arpaio's March 1 press conference that revealed his posse's findings, contained way too many facts and data to spin into Birther oblivion or even "BenSmith" -- so both events were simply ignored.  And while the media asserts that "Birthers" are conspiracists -- what the rest of us see is a conspiracy of silence.
 
Mark Levin, usually a loud voice against "Birthers," recently observed that questions on "anything about Obama's background" are characterized as "Birther," but are still valid points.  The GOP and establishment insist that any such questions are a distraction from the winning issue: the economy.  Yet in the war between left and right big-picture thinking, we find ourselves back to those embarrassing little details.  Small words, texts and pictures, and application checkboxes -- little things that provided glimpses into the character of politicians like Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Elizabeth Warren.
 
Things that range from life's details to the alleged "war on women" to the state of the economy at large -- all seem to be distractions from a greater reality: the unsettling fact that we as a nation have become self-censoring, so infatuated with relativism, multiculturalism, and political correctness that we are hesitant to seek real truth and lack courage to endure the consequences.
 
We have no dictator actually censoring our words, and therefore no excuse -- as Roger Kimball noted, "[it's] not what is done to us that keeps us silent. It's what we're doing to ourselves."  Infected further by the pathogenic press, America has become a nation full of juvenile thinkers, covering up a lack of critical thinking with name-calling and emotional attacks.
 
The grown-ups -- individuals such as Roger Kimball, Lord Monckton, Jeffrey Kuhner, Frank Gaffney, Diana West, and Thomas Lifson -- courageously remain skeptical -- not simply of the purported Obama story, but of the mainstream media's ability to conduct fair and balanced reporting and true journalistic investigation, and whether our nation will continue to decline in self-inflicted censorship.
 
So Stanley Kurtz keeps on digging, even though his findings are labeled "crackpot smears."  Lord Monckton likely doesn't mind being named a climate change denier, since he really does deny man-caused global warming.  Jack Cashill wrote that he is "[p]roud to be a 'Love Letter Truther.'"  Breitbart's staff will continue their goal of thoroughly vetting Obama, even when they're taunted as bottom-feeding "spawn," "aiding and abetting Birtherism."  And many of us will keep asking questions, even when we're called "Birther."  Because outside the juvenile sandbox of the name-calling Democrat-Media complex (Breitbart's term), in grown-up conversation, those terms imply healthy skepticism.  And, as Lifson noted, "skepticism is contagious in a time of disillusionment."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved