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 3      1   2   3   Next
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #1 
Look, this is what you get when the children of the 1960's continue to employ degenerate immoral principles of abortion, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, lawlessness, theft, idolatry, etc...They have spawn unruly and immoral children who are more interested in perversion than serving and be beholden to God.

This is not uncommon.  Now you know why God was so upset with the Children of Israel after they cried for deliverance for 400 years from bondage in Egypt when after he delivered then and destroyed Egypt's army, in 40 days, these knuckleheads did all manner of evil while Moses was getting the ten commandments ready.  They did not understand that waiting 40 years in the wilderness was small compared to 400 years of bondage in Egypt.  Instead of praying and enjoying freedom, they chose to revel in Sodom and Gomorrah tactics to have 1/2 of the Israelites be destroyed from their blatant disobedience and the others be destroyed off and not be permitted into the land with milk and honey.

Even when God has blessed the USA even through our dark times, we have our leaders of evil in both parties ignore the Constitution founded through prayer and curse God.  Heck the Democrats even booed God at their convention in 2012.

God is not pleased.  People want another AIDS epidemic like in the 1980's after the crazy and lustful living of the 1970's.  Weather is unbearable in large part because we have lost the covering from God.  He is tired of this crap.  That is why the Tea Party is refreshing.  There are some of us who know that God can't be mocked.  Keep fighting for righteousness.  We war not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities. 
KheSanh

Registered:
Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #2 
Re: #57

A truly exceptional letter.  Every patriot should read it.  Thank you Beckwith for finding it for us.  I have forwarded it to my email group crediting 'theobamafile.com' with the find.
Beckwith

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

How the Usurper "usurped"

Roseann Salanitri says there were well over 100 lawsuits that challenged Barack Obama's place on the ballot in 2008 and 2012.  These lawsuits contained a plethora of constitutional reasons why the man now occupying the White House should not have been on the ballot. Unfortunately, there were also a plethora of reasons why the lawsuits were dismissed and ignored -- most of them revealing more about the judges and their disregard for the Constitution than the Usurper himself.

Of course we are all familiar with the "Birther" allegations that were primarily dismissed through bully tactics rather than honest debate -- even claiming men such as Donald Trump as their victims.  Upon closer examination, the charges brought against the Imperial President ranged from the birther claims, to his possession of an illicit Social Security number, to a forged birth certificate, and dual citizenship -- all of which should have disqualified him from being on the ballot and would have prevented him from usurping our system of government.

The reasons for dismissing the charges against BO in the early years were based on lack of standing.  The judges claimed that damage incurred as a result of an unqualified candidate could only be brought by another candidate.  These rulings were as illegitimate as the imposter himself, as we all have standing when the Constitution is being violated -- especially when that violation places someone in authority over the entire nation. Given good ole American ingenuity, soon presidential candidates were filing suit.  Most noteworthy was Alan Keyes. Afterward, Susan Daniels, a private investigator from Ohio who discovered that Obama's Social Security number was illegitimate filed her suit as a registered write-in candidate.  By the way, the fruits of Ms. Daniel's investigation were vindicated when the Usurper's attempt to register for ObamaCare was rejected due to an invalid Social Security number. Of course his Administration swept this under the rug saying his number belonged to a President, which meant that it was protected in some unusual manner. And once again, the Usurper was allowed to continue usurping.

Ms. Daniel's case is very interesting because she filed suit against the Ohio Secretary of State. The court ruled that the Secretary of State had no statutory authority to bar the Democratic Party presidential nominee from appearing on the Ohio ballot. So, who did have the authority? Did the Court assume or presume that the Democrat Party should have policed itself -- good luck with that one! The Susan Daniels' situation is more bizarre, since the defendants never showed up in court and the judge (a Republican) argued the case on their behalf instead of ruling against them on the basis of default. Then the Judge found in favor or his own legal argument -- no surprise there.

One of New Jersey's two cases is similar to Ms. Daniels in that the defendants' attorney stated that even Mickey Mouse could be on the ballot, to which the Judge agreed. Although testimony was given that the Board of Elections admitted that BO never filed any documentation as required in 2008 or 2012, the Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin stated: "There appears to be no affirmative requirement that a person indorsed (sic) in a nominating petition for the presidency present to the Secretary of State any certification or other proof that he is qualified for the office." Again, whose responsibility is it that the constitutional requirement is observed if not a judge's?

Our Constitution states in Article II, Section 1:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Apparently no one is enforcing this constitutional requirement -- not our judges -- not our secretaries of state -- not our Democrat Party -- not our Republican Party -- and not our electoral college who ultimately casts its votes for the candidate.  It seems the Obama attorney was correct -- even Mickey Mouse can be on the ballot. And if I had my way, I'd much prefer Disney's large-eared rodent to be our Commander-in-Chief than the large-eared rodent presently occupying the White House. It may be easy to blame the usurper-in-chief for this crime against the Constitution, but there is more than enough blame to go around. He couldn't get away with this by himself.  He had quite a bit of help from the courts and all the other mentioned complicit parties.

The situation is worse.  The usurper in the White House does what usurpers do.  He has seized power that does not rightfully belong to his office in a myriad of ways -- fundamentally changing our Constitutional Republic (as he promised).  We act surprised.  We shouldn't be.  From the time he ran for the presidency up until now, he has ignored our Constitution whenever it didn't suit his purposes, and the media, Congress, the judiciary, and both major political parties have allowed him to do so with only a poor show of objection.

So, let me ask this:  anyone for starting a class action lawsuit against all that have committed crimes against our Constitution?  Let's see, that would be all the men and women in black robes posing as dispensers of justice and protectors of our Constitution; all the Democrats that certified Obama's candidacy; all the secretaries of state that allowed him to be placed on the ballot without proper documentation; all the Republicans that went along with the scam without uttering a word; and all those in the electoral colleges that cast their state's votes for the Usurper. There would be no dearth of defendants; but there does seem to be a dearth of outraged citizens. 

You may crumble under the insults of being called "Birthers" or whatever name the cabalists can conjure up, but I can assure you that those who crumble under name-calling will most assuredly crumble under the usurper's tyrannical rule.  It's high time We the People do what those we have trusted have failed to do:  enforce our Constitution while it is still worth the paper it is written on. Only by declaring his presidency illegitimate will this country be able to undo all the harm this one usurper has done, and that will happen only if our true patriots will rise to the call after falling to their knees.  It won't take an army to defeat this despot, but it will take a contingent of committed patriots -- thick-skinned and unafraid to face the media's ridicule and complacent judges. 

Will someone please say "Amen!"


__________________
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  #4 

The theatre of Barack Obama -- the show must go on

Monte Kuligowski says though his list of offenses against American liberty is lengthy, Barack Obama will not be held accountable.  The American press will never become critical of his words or deeds in a substantive and sustained manner.  And, short of an epiphany, Congress will not muster the courage to judge him with normative standards.

We all know why, but we are not allowed to say it. He is immune to substantive criticism because of skin color.

And Obama is absolved of more than criticism; he is immune to reality itself.

Attempting to remedy the former institutional injustices that black people suffered in America, the press overcompensates to alleviate the ongoing white guilt phenomenon of postmodern liberalism.  Racial narratives are sometimes manufactured when racism is nonexistent in the actual story -- and in the case of Barack Obama, storylines were created out of whole cloth.

The unimpeachable sainthood afforded to Obama because of the new nobility has taken the unreal to the surreal.  American journalists are the proud producers and directors of the Obama as president production.

One of the requirements of movie-going is the ability to suspend disbelief.  The willing suspension of disbelief is a 19th-century concept attributable to the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.  The term is used today when moviegoers ignore the implausible and impossible in order to enjoy the production on the big screen.

Imagine a moviegoer shouting, "That's fake!" during a moment when the good guy is doing something that would be ridiculous in the real world.  That's effectively what Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) did when Obama was pushing his health care bill before the full Congress in 2009.  During his presentation, Obama was arrogant, and accusatory of those who disagreed with his grand vision of central control of our health care system.  Even worse, the lecture was filled with untruths and misrepresentations.  Joe Wilson could suspend disbelief for only so long, and finally he shouted out those two words which will live forever in idiosyncrasy:

"You lie!"

Congressman Wilson broke decorum, but not because of the forum alone.  The public, liberals and conservatives alike, have been conditioned to suspend disbelief and exercise good manners and enjoy (or at least accept) the performance of Obama as a post-partisan, post-racial, all-American president of the United States.

Though, remarkably, almost everything about the Obama production is built on pretending one thing or another.

The very candidacy of Obama was make-believe.  It was Obama himself who, when asked by a reporter if he would run for the presidency in 2008, said:

You know, I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket, I would essentially have to start now, before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who might be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people.


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

Registered:
Posts: 188
Reply with quote  #5 
New Party or old Politburo, prevaricating progressives are the same old Evil Lying Left they have always been and with the same old goals too - goals that never waver: destroy capitalism, destroy faith in God, destroy the family, destroy decency and destroy American patriotism. Lie whenever you have to because the ends (previous sentence) justify the means. Goes without saying that private property ownership and the Second Amendment are also on their agenda for destruction. 
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #6 

We may see a major "About Face" in the Lamestream Media on the vetting of Obozo. Reports from the big Bilderberg meeting say that the members are no longer happy with "The One", so Romney was invited and came for awhile.
 
Rumor is they want Mitch Daniels (member) as VP to "mind the store" in the Romney Administration. The Elitists of totalitarian world govt may change horses. The Obama-horse has gotten too headstrong, balky, and seems to be going lame, anyway. The Romney-horse comes from a better stable and with a better pedigree and track record.
 
The real owners of most big newspapers, news magazines, and TV networks are Bilderbergs, or at least Council of Foreign Relations (CFR), and/or Trilateral Commission (Trilats) members. The owners tell the Editors what they want, and the Editors tell the reporters and Talking Heads and the MSM vetting of Obama may begin.
 
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/06/bilderberg-2012-mitt-romney-and-bill-gates-were-there/

Watch the media for the change. They may be subtle at first. But then again, they may just trash Obozo, and try to have the Dems pick Hillary for the 'Dem-horse'. They and Soros still like her. She has been one of them for decades.

Beckwith

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

"New Party" literature suggests Obama paid dues to join

John Sexton is reporting that in the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership.

This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.

First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn't have members.

On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement. However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never had members, telling Ben Smith, "'I have no idea what the Chicago people were saying about him being a member,' he said. 'We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.'"

The problem with this is that the New Party website--earlier drafts of which still exist in the internet archive--mention membership repeatedly and, as we'll see, even define what membership meant. Here's the 1999 version of the New Party website, specifically the "Join the New Party" page. Let me pull a few quotes that seem pertinent:

  • Transforming the face of American politics is a long, hard task. Your membership dollars can help us make each step of this process a reality
  • [T]he New Party's work depends on our members.
  • Most New Party members join as a monthly sustainer.
  • Sustainer pledges are automatically deducted from members' credit cards
  • All New Party members receive a free subscription to our quarterly newsletter
  • If you have any questions about the New Party that weren't answered on our site, or if you want to know if your membership is current, please contact our membership coordinator

There's also a "Chapters & Members" page which gives a link if you want to "Become an At-Large Member." Here's the at-large member form which is addressed to the New Party headquarters in Brooklyn "ATTN: Membership Services." The form also notes that a one-time contribution of $36 is considered "basic membership." The "Jobs and Internships" page has a job listing for Executive Director which reads, "With close to 20,000 members and a growing staff (now 25), the organization is poised to elect progressive majorities in cities across the country..."

What is evident looking at these old websites is that membership in the New Party was contingent on making a donation. That is spelled out even more clearly on this 1997 New Party web page titled "New Party Profile." It reads in part:

The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.

Members

From 1992 through early 1997, the New Party grew to 10,000 members. Growth has been accelerating-membership doubled each of the last two years-and we hope to be at 20,000 by the end of 1997.

Clearly the New Party did have members. Its membership was based on dues. And dues-paying members were allowed to vote. This completely contradicts every part of the statement Joel Rogers gave to Ben Smith in 2008 and this week. As the founder of the group, there's no way he could have been unaware of this, so we must conclude he was intentionally not telling the truth.

But the fact that New Party members were "dues-paying" suggests something else. Let's examine the statement Stanley Kurtz discovered once again:

Barack Obama... signed the New Party “Candidate Contract”... He also joined the New Party.

Here is the New Party of Illinois "Candidate Contract" listed on a website in 1999. We can't be completely sure, but this is likely the same or similar to the document Obama signed in 1996. Note that the contract has two parts. The first part stipulates what the New Party will do for the candidate. The second part lays out what the candidate is expected to do for the New Party. And right there, consistent with everything else we've seen, item #2 says "Join the New Party as a dues-paying member." Here's a screenshot:

Based on the various statements on the Party's website and the "Candidate Contract" Obama signed, it's clear that joining the New Party is synonymous with making a monetary contribution (of at least $36). The meeting minutes say Obama "joined the New Party," so we can say with near certainty that, like all the other members, he paid to join.


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

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,042
Reply with quote  #8 

Exclusive - The Vetting - Senator Barack Obama Attended Bill Ayers Barbecue, July 4, 2005

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama disavowed any connection with former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the Weather Underground radical who was one of Obama's early backers and his colleague on the board of the Woods Fund in Chicago. We now have proof that Obama's association with Ayers continued even after Obama had been elected to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate--in the form of a now-scrubbed blog post placing Obama at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow radical Bernadine Dohrn, on July 4, 2005.

Dr. Tom Perrin, Assistant Professor of English at Huntingdon College in Montgomery, Alabama, was a graduate student at the University of Chicago at the time, and maintained a blog called "Rambling Thomas." He lived next door to Ayers and Dohrn in Hyde Park. He wrote at 8:44 a.m. on July 6, 2005:

Guess what? I spent the 4th of July evening with star Democrat Barack Obama! Actually, that's a lie. Obama was at a barbecue at the house next door (given by a law professor who is a former member of the Weather Underground) and we saw him over the fence at our barbecue. Well, the others did. It had started raining and he had gone inside be the time I got there. Nevertheless.

Dohrn is a Clinical Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and Chicago did, in fact, record rainfall on the Fourth of July holiday in 2005.

Breitbart News attempted to contact Dr. Perrin for further comment: 

Dear Dr. Perrin,

My name is Joel Pollak, and I am the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News.

We came across your blog entry from July 2005 in which you mentioned that then-Senator Obama had been a guest at the Ayers/Dohrn house next door. 

http://ramblingthomas.blogspot.com/2005_07_01_archive.html

I was wondering if you could provide more detail. 

Many thanks,

Joel Pollak

Dr. Perrin did not respond. He did, however, delete his entire blog from the Internet.

Of course, Breitbart News had saved a screen grab of the blog beforehand:

Obama's presence--as a U.S. Senator--at the Ayers barbecue has been confirmed by another source, who told Breitbart News: "I too saw Obama at a picnic table in the Ayers/Dohrn backyard, munching away--on the 4th of July."

The fact that Obama socialized with Ayers and Dorn contradicts the statement that Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt gave the New York Times in 2008: 

Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.

That statement now appears to be "Clintonian" in its dance around the truth. Obama and Ayers may not have emailed or spoken by phone, but they had, we now know, spoken face to face--at least on July 4, 2005, and perhaps at other times as well.

The continued connection between Obama and his radical, domestic terrorist associates until mere months before he launched his presidential campaign is sharply at odds with the way Obama minimized the relationship, as well as the way the media largely sought to portray it as an insignificant part of Obama's past.

Whatever differences may have emerged between Obama and Ayers--and other far-left fellow travelers--since Obama took office and grappled with the realities of governing, Obama's migration towards the mainstream of American politics is very recent, and likely opportunistic. His intellectual and political roots remain extreme.


__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,042
Reply with quote  #9 

The Vetting: Rabbi Arnold J. Wolf, the Socialist, anti-Israel Rabbi Who Taught Obama What He 'Knows' About Judaism

Last Tuesday, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that  Barack Obama told a group of visiting Jewish leaders that he "probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it." While that is certainly untrue, Obama continued, suggesting that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the Jewish state because “all his friends in Chicago were Jewish.” 

That might very well be true. The question is which Jews? Meet Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf.

Author Peter Beinhart, an Obama admirer and critic of Israel whose wife works as Special Assistant and Associate Counsel to the President, and who recently declared Obama to be "the first Jewish president," discusses Obama's immersion in Rabbi Wolf's Jewish radical fringe in his book The Crisis of Zionism:

But Obama was not embedded in the Jewish world; he was embedded in one specific Jewish world — a world of Jews who in the 1960s had opposed segregation and the Vietnam War and after 1967 applied the same liberal democratic principles when it came to Israel. Woven into the life stories of many of the Jews who most influenced the young Barack Obama was a bitter estrangement from the see-no-evil Zionism of the American Jewish establishment. In Chicago, those Jews constituted a geographic and moral community, a community that bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state. And at the heart of it all was Arnold Jacob Wolf.

A Reform rabbi, Wolf spent 20 years as the leader of K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Temple, which is located across the street from the Obamas' home in Chicago. 

Rabbi Wolf subscribed to the "blame Israel first" policy of American Progressivism, and like the future president was active with the Democratic Socialists of America.

According to Wolf, he joined domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as one of the first to host “coffees” introduce 1996 candidate for Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama, to the community:

"I was certainly (hosting) one of the first," said Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, rabbi emeritus at Chicago's KAM Isaiah Israel--located across the street from the Obama home.

"There were several every week," he recalled on Tuesday night when we spoke. "I remember what I said to him: 'Someday you are going to be vice president of the United States.' He laughed and said, 'Why not president?''

Upon the death of Rabbi Wolf in December 2008, President Elect Obama wrote:

I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, who was not just our neighbor, but a dear friend to Michelle and me. We are joined in this time of grief by the entire Hyde Park community, the American Jewish Community, and all those who shared Rabbi Wolf's passion for learning and profound commitment to serving others. Today we bid farewell to a titan of moral strength and a champion of social justice...

Before his death, Rabbi Wolf spent much of his career leading organizations seeking to criticize, and even delegitimize, the Jewish State of Israel.

For example, along with radical MIT professor Noam Chomsky, Rabbi Wolf helped found the Committee on New Alternatives in the Middle East (CONAME) a philosophical grandparent to today’s faux pro-Israel group J Street.

CONAME was described by Time magazine as one of a number of Arab or pro-Arab organizations working in the United States.  An investigation by the Near East Report revealed that CONAME’s signature appeared on telegrams urging Congress to send no arms to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel was attacked by Syria and Egypt on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

In 1974, Rabbi Wolf joined his friend from the anti-war movement, self proclaimed rabbi Arthur Waskow, on the executive board of a new organization called Breira, according to Beinart:

In fact Breira’s literature and activities have been directed single-mindedly to urging Israel to accept and the United States to pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to Breira’s Mark Bruzonsky, writing in December, 1976, in The Nation, “Breira’s only hope is so to weaken American support for Israeli policies as to force policy changes, by U.S. imposition if necessary.

Understand that Breira’s calls for Israeli concessions to the PLO occurred long before the terrorist group renounced terrorism.  

In March of 1973, Wolf described Israel as: 

...frightened and thus, inevitably, trigger-happy, besieged yet somehow also haughty, developing nation. Is this what a hundred years of Zionism has led to: more danger to Jews than in the golah [Jewish exile] itself, more recklessness and violence than in all of our long diaspora history?

A 1979 article in Sh’ma, the journal Rabbi Wolf established, showed Obama’s rabbi friend to an intellectual antecedent of Norman Finklestein, as he charged that today’s Jews are misusing the memory of the Holocaust to excuse Zionist aggression:

It takes the Shoah as the model for Jewish destiny and, in struggling against it, takes arms against all humanity. It accepts all the worst accusations of the anti-Semites and builds upon these canards a new, angry and militaristic pseudo-Zionism. In order to survive, we shall assume power in the only ways power can be achieved - at the end of a gun-barrel or by Machiavellian manipulation of other groups for our own interests. There is no shame in proclaiming ourselves to be our ultimate concern. "Never again" means nothing more or less than. "Jews first - and the devil take the hindmost."

In another piece, he argued that Israel’s primary reason for self-defense was to humiliate the Palestinians:

"Some Israeli actions in the past (and, perhaps, even now) were designed specifically to demean Arabs. The deep penetration into Egypt, the destruction of the Beirut airport, the denial that Palestinians even exist: all these are, I believe, violations of the Jewish tradition, and they have cost our people dearly.

It is important to understand that in the article above, written the year after the Yom Kippur War, by “deep penetration into Egypt” Wolf is complaining about how the IDF crossed the Suez Canal at the end of the Yom Kippur War--an essential thrust that restored Israel's self-defence capacity and set the stage for peace negotiations. And notice that Wolf doesn’t even mention the Palestinians' quest to destroy the Jewish State.

In 2000, while his friend Barack Obama was still toiling in the Illinois State Senate, Rabbi Wolf was busy labeling Israel as a human rights violator. His proof? Everybody says so:

The Lebanon War was wrong. Continuing the occupation is wrong. The first Intifada softened Israel’s conscience; this one is hardening our hearts. Peace is not only a goal; it is the only way to the goal. Peace requires justice. If Amnesty International and the United Nations think Israel is repressive, they are not wholly wrong. If human rights leaders in Israel detail over and over again how the government has failed its Arab and Palestinian citizens, we must pay attention. We cannot avert the gaze of our conscience.

Even after his retirement in 2000, Rabbi Wolf stayed involved with his favorite radical causes. He was a member of the Rabbinic Cabinet of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, a group that says its mission is "to educate and mobilize American Jews in support of a negotiated two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” In actuality, it took a one-sided anti-Israel stance. 

For example, Brit Tzedek defined “terrorist violence” as part of a pattern of Arab “resistance,” implying some measure of approval, or at best a lack of distaste.

The group also helped to make Rachel Corrie's a "martyr" for pro-Palestinian activists, even though videos show Corrie was 'playing chicken" with the bulldozer and could not possibly have been seen by the driver. 

In its August 2003 bulletin Brit Tzedek v'Shalom bragged:

Similarly, freshman Congressman Rahm Emmanuel signed on the resolution asking for an investigation of the death of Rachel Corie, an international peace volunteer, non-violently attempting to stop an IDF house demolition in the West Bank.  These are among the signs that Jewish politicians are feeling they can safely deviate from the usual conformist stance.  We need to endorse these little steps and work to convince them to take others.

Looking into the positions of Rabbi Wolf gives great insight into President Obama's attitude towards Israel. Many of the President’s positions on Israel, including his rifts with Netanyahu can be seen in Wolf’s writings. 

If Obama knows more about Judaism than any other president, that is because--to quote Ronald Reagan--he, like many others on the left, knows "so much that isn't so."



__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,042
Reply with quote  #10 

The Vetting: Rabbi Arnold J. Wolf, the Socialist, anti-Israel Rabbi Who Taught Obama What He 'Knows' About Judaism

Last Tuesday, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported that President Barack Obama told a group of visiting Jewish leaders that he "probably knows about Judaism more than any other president, because he read about it." While that is certainly untrue, Obama continued, suggesting that he should not be questioned about his commitment to the Jewish state because “all his friends in Chicago were Jewish.” 

That might very well be true. The question is which Jews? Meet Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf.

Author Peter Beinhart, an Obama admirer and critic of Israel whose wife works as Special Assistant and Associate Counsel to the President, and who recently declared Obama to be "the first Jewish president," discusses Obama's immersion in Rabbi Wolf's Jewish radical fringe in his book The Crisis of Zionism:

But Obama was not embedded in the Jewish world; he was embedded in one specific Jewish world — a world of Jews who in the 1960s had opposed segregation and the Vietnam War and after 1967 applied the same liberal democratic principles when it came to Israel. Woven into the life stories of many of the Jews who most influenced the young Barack Obama was a bitter estrangement from the see-no-evil Zionism of the American Jewish establishment. In Chicago, those Jews constituted a geographic and moral community, a community that bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state. And at the heart of it all was Arnold Jacob Wolf.

A Reform rabbi, Wolf spent 20 years as the leader of K.A.M. Isaiah Israel Temple, which is located across the street from the Obamas' home in Chicago. 

Rabbi Wolf subscribed to the "blame Israel first" policy of American Progressivism, and like the future president was active with the Democratic Socialists of America.

According to Wolf, he joined domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as one of the first to host “coffees” introduce 1996 candidate for Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama, to the community:

"I was certainly (hosting) one of the first," said Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, rabbi emeritus at Chicago's KAM Isaiah Israel--located across the street from the Obama home.

"There were several every week," he recalled on Tuesday night when we spoke. "I remember what I said to him: 'Someday you are going to be vice president of the United States.' He laughed and said, 'Why not president?''

Upon the death of Rabbi Wolf in December 2008, President Elect Obama wrote:

I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, who was not just our neighbor, but a dear friend to Michelle and me. We are joined in this time of grief by the entire Hyde Park community, the American Jewish Community, and all those who shared Rabbi Wolf's passion for learning and profound commitment to serving others. Today we bid farewell to a titan of moral strength and a champion of social justice...

Before his death, Rabbi Wolf spent much of his career leading organizations seeking to criticize, and even delegitimize, the Jewish State of Israel.

For example, along with radical MIT professor Noam Chomsky, Rabbi Wolf helped found the Committee on New Alternatives in the Middle East (CONAME) a philosophical grandparent to today’s faux pro-Israel group J Street.

CONAME was described by Time magazine as one of a number of Arab or pro-Arab organizations working in the United States.  An investigation by the Near East Report revealed that CONAME’s signature appeared on telegrams urging Congress to send no arms to Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel was attacked by Syria and Egypt on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

In 1974, Rabbi Wolf joined his friend from the anti-war movement, self proclaimed rabbi Arthur Waskow, on the executive board of a new organization called Breira, according to Beinart:

In fact Breira’s literature and activities have been directed single-mindedly to urging Israel to accept and the United States to pressure Israel to accept a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization. According to Breira’s Mark Bruzonsky, writing in December, 1976, in The Nation, “Breira’s only hope is so to weaken American support for Israeli policies as to force policy changes, by U.S. imposition if necessary.

Understand that Breira’s calls for Israeli concessions to the PLO occurred long before the terrorist group renounced terrorism.  

In March of 1973, Wolf described Israel as: 

...frightened and thus, inevitably, trigger-happy, besieged yet somehow also haughty, developing nation. Is this what a hundred years of Zionism has led to: more danger to Jews than in the golah [Jewish exile] itself, more recklessness and violence than in all of our long diaspora history?

A 1979 article in Sh’ma, the journal Rabbi Wolf established, showed Obama’s rabbi friend to an intellectual antecedent of Norman Finklestein, as he charged that today’s Jews are misusing the memory of the Holocaust to excuse Zionist aggression:

It takes the Shoah as the model for Jewish destiny and, in struggling against it, takes arms against all humanity. It accepts all the worst accusations of the anti-Semites and builds upon these canards a new, angry and militaristic pseudo-Zionism. In order to survive, we shall assume power in the only ways power can be achieved - at the end of a gun-barrel or by Machiavellian manipulation of other groups for our own interests. There is no shame in proclaiming ourselves to be our ultimate concern. "Never again" means nothing more or less than. "Jews first - and the devil take the hindmost."

In another piece, he argued that Israel’s primary reason for self-defense was to humiliate the Palestinians:

"Some Israeli actions in the past (and, perhaps, even now) were designed specifically to demean Arabs. The deep penetration into Egypt, the destruction of the Beirut airport, the denial that Palestinians even exist: all these are, I believe, violations of the Jewish tradition, and they have cost our people dearly.

It is important to understand that in the article above, written the year after the Yom Kippur War, by “deep penetration into Egypt” Wolf is complaining about how the IDF crossed the Suez Canal at the end of the Yom Kippur War--an essential thrust that restored Israel's self-defence capacity and set the stage for peace negotiations. And notice that Wolf doesn’t even mention the Palestinians' quest to destroy the Jewish State.

In 2000, while his friend Barack Obama was still toiling in the Illinois State Senate, Rabbi Wolf was busy labeling Israel as a human rights violator. His proof? Everybody says so:

The Lebanon War was wrong. Continuing the occupation is wrong. The first Intifada softened Israel’s conscience; this one is hardening our hearts. Peace is not only a goal; it is the only way to the goal. Peace requires justice. If Amnesty International and the United Nations think Israel is repressive, they are not wholly wrong. If human rights leaders in Israel detail over and over again how the government has failed its Arab and Palestinian citizens, we must pay attention. We cannot avert the gaze of our conscience.

Even after his retirement in 2000, Rabbi Wolf stayed involved with his favorite radical causes. He was a member of the Rabbinic Cabinet of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace, a group that says its mission is "to educate and mobilize American Jews in support of a negotiated two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” In actuality, it took a one-sided anti-Israel stance. 

For example, Brit Tzedek defined “terrorist violence” as part of a pattern of Arab “resistance,” implying some measure of approval, or at best a lack of distaste.

The group also helped to make Rachel Corrie's a "martyr" for pro-Palestinian activists, even though videos show Corrie was 'playing chicken" with the bulldozer and could not possibly have been seen by the driver. 

In its August 2003 bulletin Brit Tzedek v'Shalom bragged:

Similarly, freshman Congressman Rahm Emmanuel signed on the resolution asking for an investigation of the death of Rachel Corie, an international peace volunteer, non-violently attempting to stop an IDF house demolition in the West Bank.  These are among the signs that Jewish politicians are feeling they can safely deviate from the usual conformist stance.  We need to endorse these little steps and work to convince them to take others.

Looking into the positions of Rabbi Wolf gives great insight into President Obama's attitude towards Israel. Many of the President’s positions on Israel, including his rifts with Netanyahu can be seen in Wolf’s writings. 

If Obama knows more about Judaism than any other president, that is because--to quote Ronald Reagan--he, like many others on the left, knows "so much that isn't so."



__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #11 

Will the 1991 biography discovery force Obama to open the hood?

Monte Kuligowski says if you have a young boy, you've probably watched Disney's Cars 2 about a thousand times.  For those who don't know, at the movie's end (an obligatory spoiler warning here), Sir Miles Axlerod is exposed as a fraud when he's forced to open his hood by Mater, the hayseed hick.  Hold that thought.
 
Three possibilities follow the bombshell discovery that Barack Obama was promoted in 1991 through 2007 by his professional agency as an author "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."  (1) Obama untruthfully presented himself as Kenya-born.  (2) Obama untruthfully presents himself as Hawaii-born.  (3) Obama had no knowledge that his bio contained the 16-year-old "error" which was corrected in April of 2007, when Obama was gearing up his campaign for the U.S. presidency.
 
Of the three possibilities, number three may be discarded on its face as absurd.  Everyone in the publishing industry knows that authors write their own bios.  At the very least, authors approve their own bios.  I've written some law review articles, and in the law journal context, author bios are normally brief.  Even so, in every instance, the respective publishers printed only what I approved.
 
Mr. Obama's Acton & Dystel bio is fairly lengthy and detailed.  To believe that Obama had no knowledge of the born-in-Kenya "error" requires more than just believing he didn't sign off on it.  We would also have to believe that Obama didn't care to read his bio in the 36-page promotional booklet after publication and distribution.  That is also a huge stretch.  Did Obama get a copy?  Of course he did -- that's another publishing standard.
 
Roger Kimball wrote a little spoof on A&D's "fact-checking" error:

An agency spokesman who claims to have been responsible for the "born in Kenya" wheeze has publicly said that it was a mistake, a typographical error, a slip of the pen that just went "unchecked" for, um, sixteen-seventeen years. I can understand that. She meant to write "Hawaii" and wrote "Kenya" instead. Could happen to anyone. They look and sound enough alike, don't they, that no one noticed. You meant to write "there" and you wrote "their" instead. You meant to write "cup" and you wrote "floccinaucinihilipilification" instead. No one -- no one at the literary agency, not the author himself -- could be expected to notice. You understand that, right?

Beyond any reasonable doubt, the Kenya birth information was supplied by Obama himself (and the bio was most likely written by Obama).
 
At this point, we should pause to consider why this explosive story is being largely ignored by the "mainstream" news media: no matter how it's spun, when the dust settles, the story is a lose-lose for Obama.  Either way, Obama has lied.  And either way, the respective lie is no small matter.
 
Some have speculated that Obama presented himself as Kenya-born to fit his black liberation ideology in context of promoting his yet-to-be-written book, Journeys in Black and White. Mark Steyn writes:

[B]eing born in Hawaii doesn't really help. It's entirely irrelevant to the twin pillars of contemporary black grievance - American slavery and European imperialism. To 99.99 percent of people, Hawaii is a luxury-vacation destination and nothing else. Whereas Kenya puts you at the heart of what, in an otherwise notably orderly decolonization process by the British, was a bitter and violent struggle against the white man's rule. Cool! The composite chicks dig it, and the literary agents.

Others have noted that if Obama registered for college in the United States as a foreign student (either because he was adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, in Indonesia or because he actually was born in Kenya), he pretty much had to go with the bio of the down for the struggle foreign author.
 
And adding to the mystery, Obama's college, vital, passport and Selective Service records are guarded more securely than the gold at Fort Knox.  If only we could just move on past those silly distractions.
  
At this point, let's hope that the establishment conservative press can finally get a handle on navigating the Obama secrecy issue skillfully and without fear.  The entire issue has been wrongly framed.  There is no burden on the people to prove anything.
 
It's not about "birther" conspiracy theories. It's not about avoiding the "birther" label at all costs.  It's about the staunch secrecy of Barack Obama.  It's fundamentally about one simple question: what the hell is Obama hiding?
 
There is absolutely no reason why citizens should have to "believe" that Obama is eligible for the presidency when relevant evidence is being withheld.
 
Full disclosure will immediately end the suspicions that citizens reasonably have.  The twin drums to be pounded are (1) the burden is on Obama to end all controversy for the sake of the country, and (2) the posting of images on the internet doesn't meet the Pawn Stars standard for authentication of documents, let alone the legal standard that Obama should be held to.
 
Anyone may safely advocate those two points.  It's really easy, and I encourage my conservative colleagues to try it.
 
Prior to the Breitbart bombshell, we had countless oddities and anomalies.  There's the African folklore: African newspapers, officials, and paternal family members have indicated that Obama was born in Mombasa.  There are no living witnesses to Obama's Hawaii birth.  There's the island state with a documented history of registering foreign births as Hawaiian.  There were the ambiguous and misleading words of its officials concerning what the Department of Health has in its archives relating to Obama.  There was Obama's sideshow spectacle of uploading his "birth certificate" to the internet in 2008 only to abruptly "release" the reportedly nonexistent birth certificate in 2011 (again online) after fighting its production in court after court for over three years.
 
But now in light of the Breitbart discovery, the production of Obama's college applications and records is as relevant as the need for Obama to comply with the legal standard for the production of his birth certificate -- which means producing certified paper copies for interested state election officials while making the original available for authentication in Hawaii.
 
Arizona's secretary of state, Ken Bennett, could have used the Breitbart discovery to support a demand for legal compliance and authentication of Obama's Hawaii records (what a great way to get this shocking news to the general public).  But, sadly, it appears that Bennett has backed down from his halfhearted request that Hawaii's Department of Health send him a certified paper copy of the original birth certificate (the Department merely informed Bennett that the copy it produced for Obama matches the original, not that Obama's internet image matches the original).
 
The Breitbart discovery also connects the discovery by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team relating to the blatant forgery of Obama's Selective Service registration form.  At this point, that document must be produced as well.
 
Something is not right with Obama.  At the very least, he was willing to lie about his life story.
 
The American people have the right to know whether Obama lied in the past because of some disturbing personality disorder -- or, perish the thought, whether Obama committed criminal acts in furtherance of fraud being perpetrated on the American people.
 
Let's not move on.
 
There's only one way to get to the truth.
 
Let's lift open the hood, Sir Axlerod.


__________________
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  #12 

Stunning photo: Obama 1st tea-party president

Democrat was a 'teabagger' despite disdain for patriots

  • Barack Obama, left, marching in a July 4, 1997, parade in ChicagoBarack Obama, left, marching in a July 4, 1997, parade in Chicago

A 1997 photograph has been unearthed showing Barack Obama marching in a tea-party-style parade, long before the tax-cutting, patriotic movement began, and despite Obama’s apparent disdain for “teabaggers,” as he has termed them.

“Yes, that really is Barack Obama wearing a regimental coat and carrying a tricorn hat in his hand,” writes John Sexton of Breitbart.com, which is publishing the photo. “And that flag behind him really is a Gadsden flag, with its serpent and its ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ slogan.”

Sexton notes, “In 2009, President Barack Obama reportedly called members of the tea party ‘teabaggers.’ It turns out that our fourth greatest president, first in so many things, may have been the first ‘teabagger’ himself.”

Breitbart.com explains the forgotten photo has been in plain view for fifteen years, explaining it appeared on the front page of Chicago’s Hyde Park Herald on July 9th, 1997, snapped by photographer Nancy Campbell Hays.

It says the original picture, which was donated to the University of Chicago, isn’t yet available for public view, and the image obtained by Breitbart News was very dark, and so it was lightened in Photoshop.

The Herald’s caption below the photograph read:

“Hey, look over here! Something catches the attention of Sen. Barack Obama (13th), Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (25th), Ald. Toni Preckwinkle (4th) and Stephanie Franklin as they lead the annual ’4th on 53rd’ parade.”

Breitbart points out neither Democrats nor the media have been especially kind to the tea party in recent years:

“MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was one of many who saw mockery of the ‘teabaggers’ as the first recourse. (The word was used so often by liberals in 2009 that Oxford made it a Word of the Year finalist.) Liberal sites like Talking Points Memo presented attendees who dressed up the way Obama did above as weirdos. The ever-predictable Bill Maher got hoots from his audience when he donned his own tricorn hat (complete with dangling tea bags) to bash the Tea Party on TV.

“President Obama blamed the ‘teabaggers’ for his failures, according to Jonathan Alter’s book ‘The Promise: President Obama, Year One,’ complaining that his own 2009 stimulus ‘helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.’ (Vice President Joe Biden is blaming them still.)

“Yet in the dramatic battles over trumped up charges of Tea Party racism and extremism, Obama never mentioned his own ‘Tea Party’ episode — and neither has anyone in the media, even as Obama’s allies and friends on the left ridiculed the Tea Party for seeking to make the same symbolic connections to the country’s founding.”

Sexton noted: “Since 2009, the ridicule of tea party signs and costumes has been so constant from Obama, the mainstream media, and the left that Glenn Beck encouraged people to stop dressing up so as not to give them an excuse.”

Barack Obama, left, marching in a July 4, 1997, parade in Chicago. Courtesy Breitbart.com

Beckwith

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

Did Obama have low SAT scores?

Charles C. Johnson says Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.
 
A Nov. 18, 1981 article in the Columbia Spectator, "Tight Housing Discourages Transfer Applications to CC," written by student Jeremy Feldman and quoting admissions officials, reported: "On paper at least, the quality of the students accepted [as transfers] has declined along with the number of applicants, the officials say."
 
Feldman, quoting Robert Boatti, Assistant Dean of Admissions, as well as the late college Dean Arnold Collery, continued:

Boatti also attributed the drop in transfer application to the College’s policy of requiring transfer students to take courses in its core curriculum and to the limited availability of financial aid for them.
 
He added a "majority" of the transfers come here from college in the New York area. Many come from community colleges, rather than the nation’s top schools.
 
"Even the unhappiest people don’t transfer from Harvard," Boatti said.
 
In grades and other indicators of academic performance, the crop of transfer applicants "doesn’t stand out the way they did before," [Dean Arnold] Collery said.

Boatti confirmed Collery’s observations.
 

Among accepted transfer students, the average combined math and verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test is a 1,100 and their grade-point average at their former schools is about 3.0, Boatti said.
 
The freshman class at the College had a combined SAT score more than 100 points higher.

Only 450 students applied to transfer to Columbia in 1981 and sixty-seven were admitted, according to the Columbia Spectator, compared to 650 applicants just four years before.
   
In his autobiography, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama describes himself as an unfocused high school student whose mother scolded him for being a "loafer" (142). He describes his attitude toward his studies at Occidental as "indifferent" (146), calling himself a "bum" who abused drugs (138) and who was notorious for partying all weekend (165).
 
That has raised questions about how Obama earned a place at Columbia in 1981, paving the way to Harvard Law and beyond. Indeed, like much else in his biography, Obama seems to have fictionalized the process through which he gained admission to Columbia. Obama writes in Dreams: "[W]hen I heard about a transfer program that Occidental had arranged with Columbia University, I’d been quick to apply"(172).
 
However, there is no record of such a "transfer program" existing at either Columbia or Occidental.
 
Breitbart News spoke to an official source at the Registrar’s Office of Occidental College, who confirmed that there has only been one transfer program between Occidental and Columbia -- one that fed students into Columbia’s School of Engineering and Applied Science (known today as the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science).
 
Obama, who was not an engineering student, would not have been eligible for that program.
 
The official also pulled Occidental’s records between 1970 and 1990, and found no transfer program with any other Columbia University program.
 
In addition, Breitbart News spoke with Phil Boerner, who transferred to Columbia from Occidental in 1981, and graduated from Columbia in 1984. He was Obama’s roommate in New York, and is one of the few Columbia students to recall Obama. Boerner, speaking by telephone, denied there was a "transfer program."
 
"You can transfer colleges at any time," Boerner said, emphasizing that he was not speaking for Obama. "There was no formal arrangement between the two schools."
 
It is possible that Obama benefited from Columbia’s affirmative action program, which the university had recently defended in an amicus curie brief to the Supreme Court in the celebrated Bakke case (1977). Columbia joined several other elite universities in defending the use of race as a factor in college admissions. The brief had argued that "minority status must be considered independently of economic or cultural deprivation."
 
Given that 1981 turned out to be a relatively easy year to enter Columbia as a transfer student, and the fact that Obama was applying as a transfer student from a private college in California, as well as a minority student, Obama likely would have stood out among applicants, regardless of his scores and grades.
 
Yet because Obama has never released his academic records, it is impossible to know whether he would have qualified for admission as a first-year student or in a typical transfer year.
 
The only way to know is for Obama to release his records, transcripts and test scores -- from Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. Why Obama has not done so remains a mystery -- unless he has something else to hide.


__________________
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 

Obama's bio grows even sketchier

Investor's Business Daily says the discovery of Obama's false book bio claiming Kenyan birth fits an increasingly disturbing pattern. We've long described Obama as radical, but he's also deceitful.
 
The mix of these two traits in the Oval Office is toxic. But the Washington media are anything but alarmed, still believing as they do the mythical savior figure they created in 2008.
 
The other night, MSNBC's Chris Matthews argued on his "Hardball" show that Americans would be wise to re-elect Obama because he's "the candidate we know." He claimed he's a trusted brand who "is who he seems to be."
 
He went on to describe the president as "a fairly pragmatic progressive" and "tough defender of the country." Therefore, he argued, he's the safer choice vs. GOP foe Mitt Romney, whom Matthews warns is an unknown commodity -- "Brand X" -- who could turn out to be a nutty puppet of the "radical right."
 
Of course, Obama isn't at all who he seems to be. And judging from Obama's sinking poll numbers, this is becoming more apparent to the electorate -- thanks in part to the new media's revetting of Obama after the old media's half-hearted attempt in 2008.
 
Voters who don't watch MSNBC are starting to see that the president's public persona is merely a hologram created by media shills like Matthews, who define his identity and ideology and redefine it when facts disrupt the carefully constructed narrative.
 
The latest fly in the ointment for Team Obama is a promotional bio Obama's book agent put out in 1991. The old copy, dug up last week by Breitbart.com, says he was "born in Kenya." Asked about the mistaken birthplace, the agent claimed it "was nothing more than a fact-checking error."

But that's not just any error. Getting a job title wrong is one thing. But screwing up a client's place of birth is a major -- and bizarre -- boo-boo.
 
More than likely, Obama supplied the error as fact, since the agency requires clients to submit their bio information. Adding to suspicions, Obama failed to correct it. For 16 years. He allowed his agent to continue to publish the error -- despite several updates to his bio posted online -- until 2007, when Obama ran for the White House and abruptly switched agents. Only then was the bio corrected.
 
Why would Obama fictionalize his life story? For answers, let's go back to 1991. At the time he got his book deal, Obama was graduating from Harvard Law School, which required strong grades for entry. Yet by all accounts, Obama had weak grades. Did he juice his application -- a la his Harvard law pal, Elizabeth "Cherokee Liz" Warren -- to hedge his bet in case his minority status wasn't exotic enough to overcome his grades?
 
Northwestern University professor John McKnight said a desperate Obama approached him for a letter of recommendation to Harvard, because he couldn't get any of his undergrad professors to pen one due to underwhelming academics. McKnight was one of Obama's radical Alinsky trainers and a key mentor, but not one of his professors.
 
The embellished bio makes the circumstances surrounding Obama's Harvard admission curiouser. And all the more reason to demand this president do what every other modern president has done, including Democrat candidates John Kerry and Al Gore, and turn over his academic records for public review.
 
At bottom, this is an issue of trust.
 
The notion that his author's bio, which played up high the phony foreign-born status, was simply a typo is about as credible as Obama claiming he never heard his radically anti-American preacher say anything unpatriotic while sitting in his pews for over two decades. Or that he hardly knew his Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers, the unrepentant terrorist who launched his political career from his living room. And who sat with him on the board of a few radical organizations. And who claims to have actually written the very memoir Obama and his agent began promoting in 1991.
 
Just who is this man sitting in the people's house? Increasingly, he appears devious and dishonest.
 
Character matters.


__________________
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  #15 

Obama the inchoate Kenyan

Mark J. Fitzgibbons says it is reasonable to believe that someone attempted to commit fraud in a commercial context when Barack Obama's literary agency published that he was born in Kenya. The few known facts seem to provide enough to constitute probable cause to probe whether an unlawful act occurred. Regardless of whether this is probed at law, and depending on what other underlying facts may come to light, there appear to be troubling legal and moral issues involved.
 
The free market depends on honest quid pro quo. Fraud is generally defined as misrepresenting a material fact to induce another person to part with something of value.
 
The quid pro quo between private parties to a transaction need not be equal in the eyes of others, or government regulators, but just fair to the parties to the transaction.
 
It may be of more value to me than to others to acquire what you have or do, so that I may be willing to pay more than the market price.  However, if you were to intentionally deceive me about your goods or services to lead me to believe that they have a higher value, you have committed a fraud.
 
There are mutual incentives for honesty in the free market, because once someone is exposed as dishonest, fewer if any people will transact business with that person. Just as mutual honesty is incentive to play fair in the free market, the free market is an incentive to mutual honesty.
 
The free market does not always result in honest transactions because people are not perfect. Penalties for fraud developed under the law to punish those who intentionally disrupt the integrity of honest transactions.
 
The law was originally designed to punish those who violated, whether intentionally or by lack of care, the covenants of civil society, and make whole those who were harmed by the wrongful conduct of others. That system goes back to the Old Testament, and the English common law on which American law was first based. Unlike many laws developed under liberal big government since then, the system was quite logical.
 
Without knowing all the facts yet, there at least appears to be cause to believe that Barack Obama, or someone acting directly on his behalf, misrepresented that Obama was born in Kenya, and that the statement was more than just a fact-checking error by his literary agent.
 
Such a false statement in the context of trying to obtain a contract for a book -- a commercial transaction -- might make the misrepresentation punishable at law. On the other hand, the misrepresentation may have been designed to induce more people to buy the prospective book, which would be another legal no-no.
 
To be punishable at law, the misrepresented fact needs to be what the law calls "material," meaning important to the formation of transaction. The fact that the book transaction was not consummated makes the misrepresentation what the law calls "inchoate," meaning incomplete but nevertheless attempted. We've all heard of inchoate lawbreaking such as attempted larceny, and so on.
 
One of the most important rules of successful marketing is to distinguish your product from others. Merely heading the Harvard Law Review is not a story worthy of a book. Being the first Kenyan-born person to do so, well, that's more of a story to sell. The pre-birther claim of Obama's Kenyan birth fits clearly the marketing rule of distinguishing your product or services. It enhanced the value of the proposed book to both the literary agent and the prospective purchasing public.
 
The fact that a false narrative of Obama's Kenyan birth was created and remained in the public domain for so long is not evidence per se that a fraud was committed. It is, however, cause to believe that someone in the chain of his literary efforts perpetrated a fraud for the purpose of enhancing the value of his story for sale.
 
Also, it is generally the rule that the unlawful acts of an agent are attributed legally back to the principal, who in this matter was Obama. A well-known example is that it is no excuse that your tax return preparer filed a tax return with incorrect information.
 
It is not credible that Obama was not aware that his literary agent published a false statement about his place of birth. Even if those defending him were to claim that he was unaware, Obama had a duty of care to ensure the accuracy of facts material to the sale of his story. He did so over a decade later, but only when he was preparing to run for president.
 
Compared to the big lies Obama tells regularly about policy and politics, a literary fraud from 1991 is small potatoes. Then again, Obama was relatively small potatoes at the time it first surfaced.


__________________
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  #16 
New Excuse: "Born Keynesian"

9) Never actually told his literary agent that he was born in Kenya. Over a bad connection, he’d told his secretary that he was a “born Keynesian”. From there, chalk it up to poor penmanship.

Found at IMAO. Sounds as good as most of his excuses.
JamesCy

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #17 

A "fact checking error""  Dystel & Goderich ask writers to submit their own bios

Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website (original emphasis): "[Y]ou should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it....Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author."

***

Back in the mid-1990s, I lived in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. My wife was a medical student at the University of Chicago and I worked as a newspaper reporter.

I didn't know it, but also living in Hyde Park a few blocks away was a fellow just a couple years older than me named Barack Obama. At the time, he was a part-time lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and I'm sure that at one time or another we crossed paths. I had no idea who he was, and unless he was a regular reader of the Chicago Daily Southtown, I'm pretty certain he had no idea who I was.

During that time, another reporter and I decided we wanted to write a non-fiction book about aging super-jocks--men and women in their 60s, 70s and 80s who could still sprint or do an Ironman or play baseball.

So we searched long and hard for a literary agent, and finally we found one who liked our material. Her name was Jane Dystel, and she worked in New York City.

A few years earlier, Jane Dystel had agreed to rep another client: my neighbor, Barack Obama!

All these years later, my former neighbor is President of the United States, and I'm reading a kerfuffle about how Dystel's agency promoted Obama as being born in Kenya. The kind people at Breitbart News asked me to write a bit about what it was like writing material for Jane Dystel and how she worked.

Now let me say right up front: when it comes to Obama, I'm not going to speculate who wrote what, when. Dystel had assistants, one of whom is now her partner, Miriam Goderich, who says the whole Obama-born-in-Kenya thing was a fact-checking mistake by her. And I cannot speak specifically to the mechanism of Dystel's publicity. (Alas, Dystel was unable to sell anything I wrote, so she had no reason to promote me, but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

I can speak of what she was like to work with and how she generated material. In my dealings with Dystel, I found her exceptionally thorough and very professional. She had a template she wanted non-fiction writers to follow, and my writing partner and I followed her template closely. She was rather fastidious, going so far as to mail a personal "Season's Greetings" card in December.

All material she used in our proposals came directly from me and my writing partner. She edited our rough-draft proposals and gave us feedback, but the final versions were all ours. Our final versions, bio included, were then simply photo-copied, by us, and distributed to potential publishers. This was back in the pre-Google days, recall. 

I was asked to write the bio in the third person.

Our first proposal didn't generate any offers from publishers. We needed an advance to be able to afford to write it, and with no money forthcoming, we shelved the idea.

Several years later, my writing partner and I returned to Dystel with what we thought was a better proposal. We had joined forces with a Pulitzer-prize winning photographer, and we thought our proposed book, "Drinking from the Fountain of Youth: Profiles and Portraits of Ageless Women Athletes," would sell. Dystel liked the idea, and she agreed to rep it. I have pulled that proposal out of my files, and it is sitting on my desk as I write this.

That second proposal logged in at 59 pages, including original art and writing samples. My bio for that proposal was five sentences long. Of course, since it was a sales pitch, I puffed myself up: I highlighted how I had reported for Minnesota Public Radio and The Philadelphia Inquirer but omitted my years at the somewhat lowly Chicago Daily Southtown. I suppose I could have made something up (who would have known?), but I didn't.

Despite Dystel's encouragement and hopes, the second also project failed to sell. By that point, I was living in Southern California, and still hadn't heard of Barack Obama. I had moved from Chicago a few months after he was sworn into the Illinois State Senate in '97, and he didn't show up on my radar. Granted, my wife and I had a new baby, she was finishing med school, and had been preparing to move out of state at the time. Life was a blur. I didn't much care who Hyde Park's new state senator was.

Later, I would learn who Obama was when he made a speech in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention. A few years later I discovered we shared Jane Dystel--or at least we did, briefly, because Obama dropped her after his very delayed success with his book Dreams From my Father. For his second book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama, in the words of the New York Times, "untethered himself from his longtime literary agent in favor of Robert B. Barnett, the Washington lawyer who had gotten Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton an $8 million book advance and then landed Mr. Obama a $1.9 million, three-book deal."

Continued the Times

What happened between Mr. Obama and Ms. Dystel is not clear. Ms. Dystel declined to be interviewed for this article. Mr. Obama said, "It really had more to do with the fact that by the time 'The Audacity of Hope' was written, I was going to be in Washington and was obviously now very high profile." Mr. (Peter) Osnos called Mr. Obama’s decision to switch to Mr. Barnett, whose clients include former Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, "disloyal but not unusual."

Meanwhile, I last had contact with Dystel two years ago. I came to her with another book idea. It was a memoir, like Obama's first book. In my story, I wrote about how I attended the University of Southern California's vaunted film school as a busted-broke middle-aged family man, a guy with three young daughters and a wife recovering from cancer, and how I had a stroke while in film school and ended up selling a prime-time television series to CBS while still at USC.

Dystel declined to rep it. She said she wasn't interested.

The story ends well; immediately after Dystel dropped me, I found another literary agent who loved my idea and sold it within weeks. My book, Film School, was released late last year, and Hollywood is already knocking at my door.

***

Dystel's full submission requirements from her website today (original emphasis):

Nonfiction Proposal GuidelinesWe work very hard with our clients to help them create their proposals and because we think this part of the publishing process is so very important, we wanted to share our basic formula for putting together a non-fiction proposal.

The proposal is broken down into several parts:

The first is the Overview. This begins with a brief dramatic anecdote which is meant to get the reader, in this case the editor at the publishing company, interested in the material. Immediately after this anecdote, you should describe in two or three sentences—no more—what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it. After this, you need to describe your audience who will buy your book—both demographically and statistically. The more numbers you have here the better.The final element of the overview is a comparative section where you compare your book to others that would be found in the same place in the bookstore. In each case, you must provide the author, the title, the publisher, and the year of initial publication and, book by book, tell us how your proposed book will be as successful as those or more so.The next element of the proposal is the Annotated Table of Contents. This consists of chapter heads and no more than a couple of sentences on what each chapter will contain.

Then you need sample material:

    • If you’re writing a general nonfiction book, we need at least one sample chapterthat matches a chapter described in your annotated table of contents.  The sample chapter is meant to do two things: show off the writing and tell us things we don’t already know.
    • If you’re writing a cookbook, there should be a section of sample recipes, which can be labeled as such. There should be 10-12 recipes from all parts of the book (i.e., one or more from the appetizer section, one or more from the soups and salads section, one or more from the entrees section, etc.). Each of these recipes should be accompanied by headnotes (about a paragraph of text introducing the recipe). Each recipe should be in standard cookbook format and should clearly state the number of people it will serve.  In addition to the sample recipes, you’ll need to include introductory text from one or two different sections of the book so that editors get a sense of your narrative writing style.

Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author.

This is followed by links that serve as Support Material—reviews of previous books, recent articles by and about you from national publications, a schedule of speaking appearances, any national media appearances, etc.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/18/dystel-biography-submission-guidelines-obama-kenya-fact-checking-error


JamesCy

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #18 
Obama agency asked authors to write their own bios
by: Steve Boman
Friday, May 18, 2012
Submission guidelines at the Dystel & Goderich website: "[Y]ou should describe in two or three sentences — no more — what the book will be about. This is followed by another brief paragraph on why it is being written and then another on why you are qualified to write it. ... 
 
Finally, there should be a more formal narrative Bio of the author."

Read more:
http://times247.com/articles/born-in-kenya-bio-provided-by-obama#ixzz1vLtpc1A3
Beckwith

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

Where do thess "born in Kenya" rumors come from?


__________________
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 

ObamaMedia works to suppress the "born in Kenya" bio

Ben Shapiro says While the internet buzzed with Breitbart News' release of a booklet from Barack Obama's literary agency circa 1991 describing him as being "born in Kenya," the mainstream media still refuses to report the story, or plays defense for Obama.
 
Never mind that the agency used the "born in Kenya" biography until 2007. Never mind that authors who have worked with the agency state that the agency asks that authors pen their own biographies. Never mind that Obama has routinely padded his biographical details to appeal to particular audiences.
 
Nothing to see here.
 
Michael Shear, at the New York Times, was in full defense mode:

"Perhaps the darker side of politics is always close to the surface … the conservative Drudge Report Web site published a headline: "BORN IN KENYA," based on a three-decade-old promotional booklet for a publisher that included an inaccurate biography of Mr. Obama. It stayed on the site for much of the afternoon. The headline linked to a report at Breitbart news, another conservative site, which suggests that the booklet represents a pattern in which Obama -- or the people representing and supporting him -- manipulate his public persona.'"
 
We presented a document. The Times calls that "the darker side of politics." Absurd. And that was the Times' only coverage of the story -- dismissing Obama's pattern of biographical manipulation without comment. All the news that's not fit to print.
 
How about the Washington Post, the paper that assured us that Mitt Romney's 50-year-old haircut incidents were news? It trotted out leftist stalwarts and Friends of Media Matters Greg Sargent and Erik Wemple to cover for Obama and his literary agency. Sargent scoffed, "rumor has it the whitey tape will break any minute now." Wemple's only comment: "Okay."
 
Well, okay, then.
 
How about the Los Angeles Times, which still refuses to release tape of Obama speaking with Palestine Liberation Organization former spokesman Rashid Khalidi at an anti-Israel event? Not a word.
 
How about Obama's hometown paper, the Chicago Tribune? Crickets. The Boston Globe? Nada. CBS? Nope. NBC? Nothing. ABC News' website did mention the story, but only by syndicating a Yahoo! News report -- and meanwhile, Jake Tapper was on Twitter, downplaying the story.
 
Huffington Post did cover the story -- but not initially. Instead, they waited for Obama's literary agency to fall on the sword, making the dubious claim that she had committed a simple "fact checking error" -- a fact-checking error that lasted 16 years and two agencies, all the way until after Obama launched his presidential campaign in 2007.

What was Huffington Post's headline? "Birthers Make Another Blunder." Once you click in, the headline becomes, "Obama Birther Rumor Debunked As Literary Agent Clarifies Mistake." The first line of the piece? "Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists have been foiled again."

This leaves questions as to whether the Huffington Post's editors are actually literate, since Breitbart News' piece introducing the Obama bio explicitly states repeatedly that Breitbart News is not stating that Obama was born in Kenya, supports the veracity of the Obama birth certificate, and explains that the evidence goes to Obama's construction of his own biography. Huffington Post did quote the original piece, but buried Breitbart News' non-birtherism at the end of its article labeling the story a "birther" story. This is magnificently dishonest, and played just as Obama would have his minions play the story.
 
Politico's Dylan Byers covered the story by calling it "an old claim that Obama was born in Kenya." This would be a lie. It's not an "old claim." It's a biography put out by Obama's literary agency, his legal representative in the literary world. And it lasted on their website for 16 years. No doubt Byers' check is in the mail from the Obama campaign.
 
So, what important news was the mainstream media covering while conspicuously ignoring the hottest story on the internet, and a story that calls into question the character of the President of the United States?
 
The New York Times ran a piece on how one Jolie Clifford likes wearing clothing cribbed from 1950s issues of Playboy.
 
The Washington Post had an article on an angler who "may have broken world record with snakehead caught in Occoquan River." The Post did not report whether Mitt Romney lashed the snakehead to the roof of his car.
 
The Los Angeles Times posted a piece explaining how Los Angeles' electric car drivers are different from others across the nation.
 
The Chicago Tribune did an article on Doodling for Google. Whatever that means.
 
How about the Boston Globe? They don't have anything on Obama's bio. They do, however, want readers to know that "With jazz trio Pilc Moutin Hoenig, anything can happen."
 
The NBC News website featured video showing a five-time "Jeopardy!" champ rating Chuck Todd's "Celebrity Jeopardy!" appearance. Todd beat comedian Lewis Black and columnist Clarence Page, in case you were wondering.

CBS reports in breaking news that Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, wife of former French President Nicholas Sarkozy, is returning to the music industry and will release a new album by the end of the year. The world waits with bated breath.
 
Clearly, the mainstream media has better things to do than cover stories calling into question how the President of the United States has spent his life constructing and reconstructing his persona. Clearly, they are too busy to vet this guy. That's why Breitbart News does it.


__________________
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 

The eternally shifting sands of Obama's biography

Mark Steyn says it used to be a lot simpler. As E.C. Bentley deftly summarized it in 1905:
 
"Geography is about maps, but Biography is about chaps."
 
But that was then, and now Biography is also about maps. For example, have you ever thought it would be way cooler to have been born in colonial Kenya?
 
Whoa, that sounds like crazy Birther talk; don't go there! But Breitbart News did, and it turns out that the earliest recorded example of Birtherism is from the president's own literary agent, way back in 1991, in the official bio of her exciting new author:
 
"Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."
 
So the lunatic theory that Barack Obama doesn't meet the minimum eligibility requirements to be president of the United States was first advanced by Barack Obama's official representative. Where did she get that wacky idea from? "This was nothing more than a fact-checking error by me," says Obama's literary agent, Miriam Goderich, a "fact" that went so un-"checked" that it stayed up on her agency's website in the official biography of her by-then-famous client up until 2007:
 
"He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister."
 
And then in April 2007, someone belatedly decided to "check" the 16-year-old "fact" and revised the biography, a few weeks into the now non-Kenyan's campaign for the presidency. Fancy that!
 
When it comes to conspiracies, I'm an Occam's Razor man. The more obvious explanation of the variable first line in the eternally shifting sands of Obama's biography is that, rather than pretending to have been born in Hawaii, he's spent much of his life pretending to have been born in Kenya.
 
After all, if your first book is an exploration of racial identity and has the working title "Journeys In Black And White," being born in Hawaii doesn't really help. It's entirely irrelevant to the twin pillars of contemporary black grievance – American slavery and European imperialism. To 99.99 percent of people, Hawaii is a luxury vacation destination and nothing else.
 
Whereas Kenya puts you at the heart of what, in an otherwise notably orderly decolonization process by the British, was a bitter and violent struggle against the white man's rule. Cool! The composite chicks dig it, and the literary agents.

Steyn continues here . . .

 

OK!  So Goderich didn't "fact check" -- but where did those facts come from?

 

Why the Liar-in-Chief, of course.

 


__________________
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 

Why the Kenyan birth claim was no "fact checking error"

Jack Cashill says that no sooner did the literary agency brochure in which Barack Obama was said to be Kenyan-born surface than the media went to work to deep-six it.
 
"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me -- an agency assistant at the time," Miriam Goderich, now a named partner in the literary agency, Dystel & Goderich, wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News, which was then picked up ABC News.  "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more."
 
This confession rings false to the point of preposterous for any number of reasons.  Let us start with the obvious.  At the time, 1991, the Acton & Dystel agency listed 90 clients, Obama among its least significant.  How likely is it that Goderich would have remembered enough about a 1991 "error" to know it was hers, especially since it went uncorrected through several revisions until changed in 2007?  To make this claim credible, there would have to be an existing paper trail leading to an Obama submission in which he lists an Hawaiian birth.  I am confident that there is no such submission.
 
Former publisher Tom Lipscomb does not buy Goderich's explanation for a New York minute.  "As someone who has run a number of top bestseller publishers, I think this is an amazing MIRACLE," writes Lipscomb emphatically on Power Line.  "It is the ONLY case I have ever heard of in which an editorial assistant INVENTED a biographical detail. I have heard of typos, wrong dates, misspellings of names. But to pick a really weird country of origin like Kenya for an author?"
 
The Breitbart people followed up with a piece by Steve Boman, a Jane Dystel client in the mid-1990s, who noted,  "All material she used in our proposals came directly from me and my writing partner."  This is standard.  In the eight books I have written under my own name, I have reviewed all biographical information sent out about me either by agent or publisher.  Like most authors, I have let a little fluff pass, but not much.
 
The most interesting "tell" in the 1991 Acton & Dystel brochure relates to what was said about Obama's career in the business world.  Obama, the reader learns, "worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation."
 
In Dreams from My Father, Obama inflated his stint at Business International even more and transformed it into a faux moment of racial awareness, one of at least a half-dozen concocted racial melodramas in the book.  As Obama tells the story, a "consulting house to multinational corporations" hired him and promptly promoted him to the position of "financial writer."
 
Here, he felt like "a spy behind enemy lines," and a guilty one at that.  "As far as I could tell," he adds, "I was the only black man in the company."  He does not boast of his racial uniqueness.  Rather, in full grievance mode, he considers it "a source of shame."  Indeed, the whole experience troubled him:

I had my own office, my own secretary, money in the bank. Sometimes, coming out of an interview with Japanese financiers or German bond traders, I would catch my reflection in the elevator doors-see myself in a suit and tie, a briefcase in my hand-and for a split second I would imagine myself as a captain of industry, barking out orders, closing the deal, before I remembered who it was that I had told myself I wanted to be and felt pangs of guilt for my lack of resolve.

As early as July 2005, however, former co-worker and Obama fan Dan Armstrong revealed Obama's whole account to be a "serious exaggeration."  Obama worked at not a multinational corporation, but a "small company that published newsletters."  He was not the only black person who worked there.  He did not, as claimed, have his own office, wear a jacket and tie, interview international businessmen, or write articles.  He mostly just copy-edited business items and slipped them into a three-ring binder for the company's customers.
 
Are we supposed to believe that Goderich not only changed Obama's birthplace from Hawaii to Kenya, but also transformed him from a grunt filling three-ring binders into a "financial journalist and editor"?
 
When this discrepancy surfaced years later, pundits in either camp were confused as to why Obama would lie about such seemingly irrelevant details.  There are two good, non-exclusive possibilities.  For one, the exaggeration enables the reader to see Obama as he would like to see himself -- "a spy behind enemy lines."  For another, Obama's co-author, Bill Ayers, once again took the framework of Obama's life and roughed in the details.
 
In Fugitive Days, Ayers' 2001 memoir, he uses the phrase "behind enemy lines" almost literally to describe his and his comrades' quiet infiltration of the opponent's position.  Wife Bernardine Dohrn has said the same in public.  When the Weather Underground declared its state of war with the United States in May 1970, Dohrn warned that people fighting "Amerikan imperialism" all over the world "look to Amerika's youth to use our strategic position behind enemy lines to join forces in the destruction of the empire."
 
The bottom line is this: Obama has been creating and shifting identities his entire adult life.  If the agency brochure was a snapshot of the 1991 Obama, Dreams captured him in his 1995 pose: hip, black, progressive, wounded by racial slights but able to overcome them, just the man to lead Chicago into the 21st century, then the extent of his and Ayers's ambition for him.
 
"I met [Obama] sometime in the mid-1990s[,]"  Bill Ayers would tell Salon, likely pushing the actual date back several years.  "And everyone who knew him thought that he was politically ambitious. For the first two years, I thought, his ambition is so huge that he wants to be mayor of Chicago."
 
Friend Cassandra Butts traced that ambition back at least to Harvard.  "He wanted to be mayor of Chicago and that was all he ever talked about as far as holding office," she would tell early Obama biographer David Mendell.
 
No one would have challenged Obama's biography had he not gone beyond Chicago, but he did.  And so where he was born matters, and whether he even wrote his own biography matters, too.  As much as I know about Obama, I don't know pretend to know the answer -- at least to the first of those two questions.

 

Here is Dan Amstrongs account of Barack Obama's Business International embelishment -- it's required reading!

 

 


__________________
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  #23 
SigP226,
just as I stated above in my post (#33 above)....  that is totally true and right.  And for anyone to believe not, they are oblivious to everything around them....
SigP226

Registered:
Posts: 129
Reply with quote  #24 
I have published numerous works and the author always verifies bibliographic details. 
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #25 

Re: BUSTED!
 
This was the old Official Obama Story, Senate campaign version. circa March 2007.
 
The New, Improved Official Obama Story, Presidential campaign version, Mark III, Mod.5 hadn't been completely written, proof-read, and approved yet. Much less given to the MSM 'Ministry of Truth' for Official Distribution and Indoctrination via the Electronic Lobotomy of the Sheeple. (For their own good of course).

The 'Real Deal' here is how many times will Obozo have to be "BUSTED" before the Sheeple demand a honest investigation of Obama.  And his "Handlers". And all the conspirators and facilitators. All are guilty.

We are living in a bad 1950's political/science fiction novel.
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