Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness (Read 859071 times)

DougMacG · « **Reply #1100 on:** March 22, 2012, 02:07:03 PM »

The campaign is still lying about Obama's mom's battle with her insurance company over the treatment of her cancer: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-road-weve-traveled-a-misleading-account-of-obamas-mother-and-her-insurance-dispute/2012/03/18/gIQAdDd4KS_blog.html

None of our business except that is it was given as a first hand example and primary reason that we needed the 1.7 trillion dollar, anti-constitutional healthcare act. Also interesting to find out from time to time, who tells the truth and who doesn't.

G M · « **Reply #1101 on:** March 25, 2012, 05:19:38 PM »

**Hey Obama, the Kim family is just trying to spread the wealth around! Why do you hate social justice in North Korea?

Best quote: "It is like you are looking across 50 years into a country that has missed 40 years or 50 years of progress," Obama marvelled later, after taking a helicopter back to teeming, prosperous Seoul, just 25 miles (40 kilometres) away.

Yeah, almost like Detroit.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/obamas-disbelief-staring-n-korea-174551638.html

G M · « **Reply #1102 on:** March 26, 2012, 03:05:49 PM »

From the "But he wore a kippa at AIPAC" file:

President Barack Obama and Turkey’s controversial Islamist prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan have become such bosom buddies that Erdogan is giving Obama advice on raising his American daughters.

Obama, who met with Erdogan March 25 at the nuclear summit in South Korea, has already met with Erdogan numerous times. He touted their relationship as a “friendship” in a January interview that was hyped by Erdogan’s press allies.

The two met in South Korea on Sunday, Eastern Time, to discuss Syria’s civil war and Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but they also talked about the president’s two daughters, Malia and Sasha, Obama said during a press conference, according to a White House statement.

“The bottom line is that we find ourselves in frequent agreement upon a wide range of issues… [and] because he has two daughters that are a little older than mine — they’ve turned out very well, so I’m always interested in his perspective on raising girls,” Obama said.

One of Erdogan’s two daughters, Sumeyye, is entering Turkish politics via her father’s Islamist party, according to the Turkish press.

She wears Islamist-style clothes that obscure her hair and shape.

In Sept. 2010, the then-29 year old met with her father and U2 singer Bono while wearing a scarf that covered her hair and throat, long-sleeves that covered her forearms and a baggy overcoat that hid her figure.

In Feb. 2011, Sumeyye attended a meeting at the United Nations headquarters in New York while wearing a tight head-scarf that hid her hair and throat. She was accompanied by Erdogan’s wife, Ermine, who wore a head-to-toe black cloak.

Obama’s daughters, 13 year-old Malia and 10 year-old Sasha, dress far more liberally in typical American fashion.

The first lady, Michelle Obama, is a feminist and does not wear head scarves or throat scarves and often leaves her arms bare.

By openly acknowledging Erdogan’s advice on child-rearing, Obama “didn’t realize what he’s saying,” said Barry Rubin, an expert on Turkish politics.

Obama likely made the error, Rubin said, “because he is so unselfconscious and is not used to having to think through his remarks.”

Still, “it is shocking that [Obama suggests] he takes child-raising advice from a radical Islamist,” whose wife dresses in black cloaks or tight headscarves when traveling in the West, said Rubin.

Overall, the White House statement about the meeting “goes beyond polite praise and good manners and practically slobbers over a repressive, pro-Iran leader whose hatred for Israel is literally hysterical,” said Rubin.

The White House statement included statements by both Obama and Erdogan, but no press questions.

“I just want to say how much I appreciate the opportunity to once again meet with my friend and colleague, Prime Minister Erdogan … I find Prime Minister Erdogan to be an outstanding partner and an outstanding friend on a wide range of issues,” Obama began.

Erdogan responded to Obama by saying, “My dear friend, Barack, thank you very much for a very fruitful meeting today,” and then sketched out his plans to visit Iran’s theocratic government this week and to arrange a U.S-Turkey summit in June, before he ended with the comment that, “I also told you about my daughters.”

Over the last decade, Erdogan has pushed Turkey in an Islamist direction, rolling back the country’s secular laws — including laws that curb the wearing of Islamist headscarves — jailing many journalists, cooperating with Iran’s theocracy, spurring hostility towards Israel and demanding Israel apologize for forcibly stopping a May 2010 Islamist flotilla that was launched from Turkey.

In January 2009, he angrily walked out of a public event with Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres after accusing Israel of attacking Arabs and killing Arab children.

In contrast, Obama told Newsweek in January that Erdogan is one of five foreign leaders with whom he shares “friendships and the bonds of trust.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/obama-turkeys-islamist-prime-minister-discuss-nukes-teenagers/

DougMacG · « **Reply #1103 on:** March 28, 2012, 06:28:09 PM »

A freshman congressman caught reading DBMA forum:

Geithner Admits Obama Was Part of Congress that Caused Economic Woes

At a hearing today on Capitol Hill, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner blamed members of Congress (before 2008) for the economic troubles:

When Geithner is reminded by freshman GOP congressman Tom Graves of Georgia that President Obama was a member of that congressional body, he's forced to admit, "Oh, I see your point. That's a good point. He was a senator for two years. You're right."

Graves then says, "He had an opportunity to be part of the solution."

Geithner replies, "That's true."
-----

Kind of an obvious point, but pointed out by almost no one.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/geithner-admits-obama-was-part-congress-caused-economic-woes_634778.html

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1104 on:** April 08, 2012, 07:53:34 AM »

An internet friend writes to me:

Marc,

I read your Facebook post regarding Obama yesterday, and thought you might be interested in this profile. Discover the Networks is an excellent resource generally, but their profile of Obama is especially illuminating. I was struck by your description of Obama as a "Professor" at Chicago Law School, which I don't think is technically accurate, though in their statement, the Law School does state that "Senior Lecturers" are considered professors. I think this is greatly stretching the definition of professor - as he was NOT full-time or tenure-tracked. Also, he was certainly not - as often repeated in mainstream media organs - a "Constitutional Law Professor." I am also quite familiar (and have been since his election as U.S. Senator) with the audio of him on Chicago Public Radio referring to the U.S. Constitution as a "charter of negative rights," and saying it "fails to say what the government must do [in the citizens'] behalf."

The man is a despicable Marxist in my opinion, who clearly has ZERO regard for the Constitution, except when it happens to coincide with his own agenda, which amounts to re-making this nation into a mythical Marxist utopia upon the ashes of the Founders' republic. See the two links below:

www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511

www.law.uchicago.edu/media

DougMacG · « **Reply #1105 on:** April 08, 2012, 09:51:19 AM »

I believe Obama caught some criticism for calling himself a professor, but to have taught constitutional law should be quite a wonderful credential for a potential President. Unfortunately there is quite a split in this country regarding what that means. To the far left IMO the study and teaching of the constitution and the ruling and precedents is in the ends justify means quest to enlarge the power and scope of government.

"the audio of him on Chicago Public Radio referring to the U.S. Constitution as a "charter of negative rights," and saying it "fails to say what the government must do [in the citizens'] behalf." "

This is helpful. I had hoped that as the 2008 campaign unfolded we would learn more about his views which I assumed were radical about the meaning to him of the constitution. He mostly got a pass on that. Now we can judge 2 of his appointees (so far) and gradually discover more about his past and current views.

If more of his views come out I think people will see he is more radical than the center of the Dem party- he voted no on confirmation of Justices Roberts because though he will apply the law correctly on 95% of the cases he will not have same values as Obama to go beyond the letter of the constitution?! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124390047073474499.html For those who think the constitution is document limiting the size and scope of government, you do not have an ally in the White house IMHO.

A right to healthcare including a duty to others to provide it for you and the power of government to enforce all that is just one example of how radicals such as our President believe the founding fathers fell short in their duty. Yet unexplainably they see no need for an amendment necessary to make the correction.
---------------------
Sen. Obama on his Roberts 'No' vote, link above:

. . . [T]he decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view.

It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95% of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5% of cases that are truly difficult.

In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
...

ccp · « **Reply #1106 on:** April 10, 2012, 10:31:26 AM »

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/10/Visibly-Annoyed-Obama-Gets-Lecture-Form-Female-President-of-Brazil

ccp · « **Reply #1107 on:** April 10, 2012, 01:05:38 PM »

Yet Brock calls Republicans/teaparty affilitates "radicals". I don't look forward to the next several months of this:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/04/09/Rev-Wright-Admits-Radical-Preaching-Never-Changed-and-Obama-Listened-to-20-Years-Of-It

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1108 on:** April 10, 2012, 02:13:17 PM »

And here's the Rev. himself

www.theblaze.com/stories/church-refuses-to-allow-fox-news-to-play-blaze-exposed-video-of-rev-wright/=

G M · « **Reply #1109 on:** April 10, 2012, 06:48:47 PM »

Obama's brand

DougMacG · « **Reply #1110 on:** April 14, 2012, 10:10:13 PM »

Not enough to be autographing basketballs with your face printed on them at taxpayer expense (?), but to answer the question about American Exceptionalism as he did, right alongside the leaders of two neighboring countries, is narcissism beyond explanation.

President Obama: "my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism" !!!!!
-------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577321844137787970.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Obama Puts the 'I' in 'Exceptionalism' - James Tarranto, WSJ

"It's worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism," Obama said at a press conference alongside Mexican president Felipe Calderón and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

...doesn't he have an aide who can tell him that the symbol of America is not the bald ego?

G M · « **Reply #1111 on:** April 14, 2012, 10:30:49 PM »

King Joffrey Baracktheon

You'll have to watch "Game of Thrones" to get it.

ccp · « **Reply #1112 on:** April 15, 2012, 09:08:10 AM »

"my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism" !!!!!

Not accurate. His entire career is boasting about his OWN exceptionalism while at the same time bashing America.
"they cling to their guns their religion"
"social Darwism"
sat voluntarily listening to "God damn America" for decades.
His wife, "i am ashamed of America". (until now she is rich and famour and a celebrity)

A class act he is not.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1113 on:** April 16, 2012, 05:59:46 PM »

God help us , , ,

G M · « **Reply #1114 on:** April 17, 2012, 07:59:28 AM »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/obamas-gaffes-are-his-own.php

Posted on April 17, 2012 by John Hinderaker in Obama administration

Obama’s Gaffes Are His Own

Yesterday Barack Obama addressed the Summit of the Americas in Colombia and spoke about the conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands. Obama seemed to tilt toward Argentina by calling the islands the “Malvinas” rather than the Falklands, which Argentina insists is their proper name.

Only Obama didn’t say Malvinas, he said Maldives–an entirely different group of islands located thousands of miles from the Falklands in the Indian Ocean:

So with one word, Obama both offended the British and made himself a laughingstock with the Latin Americans. Here in the U.S., we are used to such embarrassing errors by our president, but the international press hasn’t quite caught up. My complaint, specifically, is about this account of Obama’s gaffe in the Telegraph, not a particularly left-wing paper by British standards. The Telegraph’s article is headlined “Barack Obama makes Falklands gaffe by calling Malvinas the Maldives.” It begins:

Barack Obama made an uncharacteristic error, more akin to those of his predecessor George W Bush, by referring to the Falkland Islands as the Maldives.

Really? When did Mr. Bush ever display such geographic ignorance? It is Obama, not Bush, who is prone to putting his foot in his mouth in a matter that causes diplomatic embarrassment. Can we finally, after well over three years, leave his predecessor out of it and let Obama own his many gaffes and blunders?

Hello Kitty · « **Reply #1115 on:** April 17, 2012, 08:23:11 AM »

GM, don't you know, that according to the leftist position, just speaking with a Texan accent automatically makes one stupid.
Obama's gaffe, will be discarded as an honest mistake because he was sucking up to minorities.
I just got back to the States yesterday and had Roscoe's chicken and waffles. Evidently Obama had just been there too, so they named a special after him. It's good to see that he is staying in touch with his constituents instead of at least learning to insult thee State's allies properly.

ccp · « **Reply #1116 on:** April 17, 2012, 09:28:32 AM »

Like I said the self proclaimed sage of the age will EAT those words!:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/india-test-long-range-missile-week-230825737.html

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1117 on:** April 17, 2012, 04:31:46 PM »

http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/04/barack-obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-forged/

It appears the web is a buzz with information concerning the New Jersey court contest in regards to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. At the center of the controversy now is the fact that Barack Obama’s own lawyer has apparently conceded the fact that the document is a forgery.

According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

She then went on to try and establish his eligibility by speaking of his political popularity, not legal qualification, in order to be a candidate!

Penbrook Johannson, editor for The Daily Pen said, “Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified. Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

So what this comes down to is legal tip toeing around the issue. Let me put it simply. Obama’s own lawyer admits that the birth certificate which was put out by the White House is a forgery. The forgery does not prove Obama is not a “natural born” citizen since it is a forgery. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not made their case and Barack Obama should be left on the ballot. I’ll bet Mr. “It depends on what is, is” was behind this bit of legal wrangling.

As far as I can see that makes it a bigger issue than just that of the State of New Jersey. This is most definitely a national issue. The President of the United States’ own lawyer has just stated unequivocally that the President knowingly put out a forged document and claimed it was his birth certificate. Ladies and gentlemen, why in the world then, is there no immediate cries for impeachment and more than that, charges of treason brought against Barack Hussein Obama?

I’ll tell you why. It’s an election year for one. Two you have a Democrat led Senate that will never vote to convict him. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it as their duty, but sadly the reality is that impeachment proceedings against a sitting President are purely political. However, I would hope that the Republican led Congress might get some brass ones and begin the proceedings anyway, letting people know they intend to carry out impeachment, even if Barack Obama is elected again and to encourage others to vote in those who are principled enough to uphold the Constitution, especially when it comes to a usurper in the Oval Offfice.

In a nut shell, the above is exactly why Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do not fear mocking the American people with their blatant forgery, lies and manipulation of the Constitution and the facts. In order to remove the man it would have to be done by force or by impeachment and impeachment will never happen with the way things are now. It is my opinion that since our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both enemies foreign and domestic, that they should be looking at the evidence and act accordingly.

Tim Brown
FrontPorchPolitics.com

G M · « **Reply #1118 on:** April 17, 2012, 05:27:48 PM »

I'm going to wait on icing the champagne until I see this from some other source.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2012, 04:31:46 PM

http://frontporchpolitics.com/2012/04/barack-obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-forged/

It appears the web is a buzz with information concerning the New Jersey court contest in regards to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be on the state’s ballot. At the center of the controversy now is the fact that Barack Obama’s own lawyer has apparently conceded the fact that the document is a forgery.

According to TeaPartyTribune.com, attorney Alexandra Hill, of the Newark-based law firm Genova, Burn and Giantomasi, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. She concluded her analysis of the online birth certificate arguing that it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.

She then went on to try and establish his eligibility by speaking of his political popularity, not legal qualification, in order to be a candidate!

Penbrook Johannson, editor for The Daily Pen said, “Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified. Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”

So what this comes down to is legal tip toeing around the issue. Let me put it simply. Obama’s own lawyer admits that the birth certificate which was put out by the White House is a forgery. The forgery does not prove Obama is not a “natural born” citizen since it is a forgery. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not made their case and Barack Obama should be left on the ballot. I’ll bet Mr. “It depends on what is, is” was behind this bit of legal wrangling.

As far as I can see that makes it a bigger issue than just that of the State of New Jersey. This is most definitely a national issue. The President of the United States’ own lawyer has just stated unequivocally that the President knowingly put out a forged document and claimed it was his birth certificate. Ladies and gentlemen, why in the world then, is there no immediate cries for impeachment and more than that, charges of treason brought against Barack Hussein Obama?

I’ll tell you why. It’s an election year for one. Two you have a Democrat led Senate that will never vote to convict him. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it as their duty, but sadly the reality is that impeachment proceedings against a sitting President are purely political. However, I would hope that the Republican led Congress might get some brass ones and begin the proceedings anyway, letting people know they intend to carry out impeachment, even if Barack Obama is elected again and to encourage others to vote in those who are principled enough to uphold the Constitution, especially when it comes to a usurper in the Oval Offfice.

In a nut shell, the above is exactly why Barack Obama and the Democratic Party do not fear mocking the American people with their blatant forgery, lies and manipulation of the Constitution and the facts. In order to remove the man it would have to be done by force or by impeachment and impeachment will never happen with the way things are now. It is my opinion that since our military takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from both enemies foreign and domestic, that they should be looking at the evidence and act accordingly.

Tim Brown
FrontPorchPolitics.com

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1119 on:** April 17, 2012, 05:50:31 PM »

Yaaa , , , you are right

ccp · « **Reply #1120 on:** April 18, 2012, 09:14:59 AM »

If true, there is no way conservative talk radio, Hannity, Brietbart, etc will let this slide like the MSM and Karl Rove and "Bush" Republicans will.

DougMacG · « **Reply #1121 on:** April 18, 2012, 11:24:22 AM »

Barack Obama addressed the Summit of the Americas in Colombia and spoke about the conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands. Obama seemed to tilt toward Argentina by calling the islands the “Malvinas” rather than the Falklands, which Argentina insists is their proper name.

Only Obama didn’t say Malvinas, he said Maldives–an entirely different group of islands located thousands of miles from the Falklands in the Indian Ocean:

So with one word, Obama both offended the British and made himself a laughingstock with the Latin Americans.

- John Hinderacker, Powerline

G M · « **Reply #1122 on:** April 18, 2012, 01:02:39 PM »

Revealed: The official fears US and Britain shared about over President Obama's 'anti-American' and 'anti-white' fatherBy Claire Ellicott, Sam Greenhill and Martin Robinson
PUBLISHED: 18:00 EST, 17 April 2012 | UPDATED: 09:24 EST, 18 April 2012

In his three years as U.S. president, Barack Obama has been dogged by claims he is not patriotic enough.
Last year he even had to publish his birth certificate to silence doubters who suggested he was not born an American.
Now it emerges that similar fears were expressed about his father, who was categorised with others as ‘anti-American and anti-white’ when he moved to the United States in 1959.
Father and son: The Barack Obamas together, when the US President was just 10 years old

Barack Obama with his mother Ann Dunham
Barack Obama, Sr. in a snapshot from the 1960s
Father: Barack Obama with his wife Michelle and daughters Malia (left) and Sasha (right)
Mr Obama Snr had grown up in Kenya under British rule and aroused the fears of both colonial officers and American officials when he won a chance to study in Hawaii. The officials felt Kenyan students were ‘academically inferior’ with a ‘bad reputation’ for turning anti-American.
More...Senator says Secret Service brought TWENTY prostitutes to hotel - as it is revealed agents BRAGGED about protecting Obama while partying at Colombian brothel
The Decline of the American Empire

A memo from a British diplomat in Washington to Whitehall – released today by the National Archives in West London – sets out their concerns about the young Kenyans.
Dated September 1, 1959, it says: ‘I have discussed with the State Department. They are as disturbed about these developments as we are. They point out that Kenya students have a bad reputation over here for falling into the wrong hands and for becoming both anti-American and anti-white.’
In one of the Foreign Office files, the future president’s father appears on a list of Kenyan students as ‘OBAMA, Barack H’ – they shared the same name.
At the age of 23, he enrolled at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu to study economics with classmates including Ann Dunham, a 17-year-old white American from Kansas. The couple had a short marriage that led to the birth in 1961 of the future president, Barack Obama II.
Mr Obama Snr was among 100 or so Kenyan students brought to America by the African American Students Foundation.
U.S. and British officials were deeply suspicious of this outfit, observing that the AASF – though backed by singer Harry Belafonte and actor Sidney Poitier – had links to a Kenyan nationalist leader.
‘The motives behind this enterprise, therefore, seem more political than educational,’ warned a letter from the British Embassy in Washington.
It added: ‘The arrival here of these students, many of them of indifferent academic calibre and ill-prepared for the venture, is likely to give rise to difficult problems.’
Mr Obama Snr, who died in 1982, is not singled out for concern in any of the documents.
After leaving Hawaii he took a PhD in economics at Harvard and later became a senior economist with the Kenyan government.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2131290/Revealed-Official-fears-U-S-UK-President-Obamas-anti-American-anti-white-father.html

G M · « **Reply #1123 on:** April 18, 2012, 01:13:41 PM »

When Buraq is playing golf and the course features a "dogleg", does he call it a "drumstick"?

G M · « **Reply #1124 on:** April 18, 2012, 01:18:10 PM »

Quote from: G M on April 18, 2012, 01:13:41 PM

When Buraq is playing golf and the course features a "dogleg", does he call it a "drumstick"?

Is "Bo" really a pet, or a very special dinner intended for after the election?

G M · « **Reply #1125 on:** April 18, 2012, 01:28:29 PM »

When sightseeing in DC, make sure to bring a snack.

"When sightseeing in DC, be sure to bring a snack!"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/dc-trawler/

DougMacG · « **Reply #1126 on:** April 18, 2012, 01:48:00 PM »

Obama would never put a dog on top of a car. It dries out the meat.

DougMacG · « **Reply #1127 on:** April 18, 2012, 02:06:06 PM »

"After leaving Hawaii he (Mr Obama Snr,) took a PhD in economics at Harvard and later became a senior economist with the Kenyan government."

Kenya per capita income nearly 50 years later: US$ 2.00/day, $60/mo. - Living the Dream!

I wonder what they teach for economics over at those Ivy League Schools... Fairness?

G M · « **Reply #1128 on:** April 18, 2012, 02:21:44 PM »

"After leaving Hawaii he (Mr Obama Snr,) took a PhD in economics at Harvard and later became a senior economist with the Kenyan government."

Kenya per capita income nearly 50 years later: US$ 2.00/day, $60/mo. - Living the Dream!

I wonder what they teach for economics over at those Ivy League Schools... Fairness?

No worries, if Buraq gets his 2nd term, our per capita income will be close to that, it's only fair.....

Hello Kitty · « **Reply #1129 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:02:42 PM »

I've known his birth certificate to be fake for years. Call it instinct. No-one spends more than a million dollars concealing their past unless they have something to hide, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on.

My experience has shown me that we're all dirty, because we're human. We make mistakes.
The people that worry me, aren't the ones that have made mistakes or are imperfect and flawed, but the ones that try to pass themselves off as lily-white, especially when the same people are granted a measure of lower from the public. They should be
absolutely transparent, or we're right not to trust them because they're hiding and being deceptive. I don't mind Slick Willie being a pothead and a cheat nearly as much as I mind him lying about it. Hell, I understand everything except the lies. Obama's misdeeds and lying will come to light someday, but in true Liberal fashion, they'll find some way to justify it or shift focus onto something else.
them, because the3y

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1130 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:24:02 PM »

I am hearing that what the govt attorney said was that "EVEN IF the cert. were a fraud" as a matter of logic it would not prove anything (and this is correct), which is QUITE a bit different that what I posted asserted.

G M · « **Reply #1131 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:39:19 PM »

If I had a dog, it would look like the one Obama ate...

G M · « **Reply #1132 on:** April 18, 2012, 04:54:57 PM »

David Burge ‏ @iowahawkblog. A haiku:

At dinner table / Faraway Jakarta / Hungry boy, tough Spot

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1133 on:** April 18, 2012, 05:35:23 PM »

That is wickedly funny.

G M · « **Reply #1134 on:** April 18, 2012, 08:33:33 PM »

"It's a coooooookboooook!"

Hello Kitty · « **Reply #1135 on:** April 18, 2012, 09:10:44 PM »

Even funnier.

DougMacG · « **Reply #1136 on:** April 18, 2012, 09:59:22 PM »

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/04/hitler-finds-out-obama-ate-his-dog.php

G M · « **Reply #1137 on:** April 20, 2012, 06:06:21 AM »

Quote from: G M on April 18, 2012, 04:39:19 PM

If I had a dog, it would look like the one Obama ate...

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1138 on:** April 23, 2012, 11:43:55 AM »

I am in Dublin and in no position to track down the validity of what follows. Perhaps our own Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Snark himself, can track this down

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obama-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/question-2603749/
Obama defense attorney Alexandra M. Hill admitted that the long form
birth certificate released online by the White House in April 2011
<http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/04/27/obama-releases-the-birth-certificate/>
is indeed a forgery that "did not originate from an actual paper
document and therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his
lack of natural born citizenship status." ... President Obama's birth
certificate "was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to
endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the
image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence
toward proving Obama's ineligibility in a court of law," the /Tea Party
Tribune/ quoted Hill as saying.

April 19, 2012
By Monte Kuligowski

For several years, an Orwellian-type fear of being "marginalized" held
reporters and pundits back from questioning Barack Obama's eligibility to hold
the office of the presidency. To raise an eyebrow at the bizarre secrecy
of Obama was off-limits. To question whether the historic definition of
"natural born citizen" applied to Obama was taboo.

The era of fear, however, is happily winding down. It will take some time
for this realization to fully take hold. But make no mistake: the tables
have turned.

Like it or not, the ground has shifted, and it cannot shift back. The
evidence of Obama's forgeries is not going away.

Up until this point, Mr. Obama controlled everything, including the
talking points and burden of proof.

Rather than simply produce certified paper copies for state election
officials and make the original available for officials to inspect in Hawaii,
Obama played games with his purported birth certificate.

We were told for three years that Obama's birth certificate had been posted
online in 2008 -- though it turns out that it was a scant certification.

In 2010, when confronted with the alarming doubts of the American people,
Mr. Obama lamented to a sympathetic Brian Williams of NBC: "I can't spend
all my time with my birth certificate plastered on my forehead."

The following year, out of left field, on April 27, 2011, Obama "released"
the elusive birth certificate by posting a now-discredited file image
online.

This time he wasn't teasing. It was "proof positive." Mr. Obama, in his
robotic style, barked that it was time to stop the "silliness" and move on.

No one ever wanted Obama to get all crazy and walk around with his birth
certificate plastered on his forehead. But many took the reasonable
position of wanting the mysterious birth certificate produced, not plastered or
uploaded to a computer. Many wanted Obama to produce certified copies for
state officials and make the original available for inspection.

But because no authority forced him to comply with basic legal standards,
Mr. Obama was able to create a sideshow atmosphere by selecting non-experts
to verify his internet postings behind closed doors.

His media sycophants were able to make those who questioned Obama's staunch
secrecy appear as the unreasonable ones. Somehow the burden of proof was
erroneously placed on the citizenry to prove that Obama wasn't born in
Hawaii.

Well, the burden never actually rested with the people to prove anything.
That was all smoke and mirrors. No conspiracy theories are needed to
demand that Obama comply with basic legal standards -- especially in context of
a state with a history of certifying foreign births as Hawaiian.

After Obama "released" the birth certificate in 2011, nonpartisan computer
software experts immediately recognized that the embarrassing image had
been computer-assembled. Of course, few in the free press dared to report on
the "silliness."

Fox News quickly summonsed Adobe-certified expert Jean-Claude Tremblayto to
conclude, nothing fishy here (but his ORC explanation has been
demonstrably debunked by the control-test findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's
investigative team -- see below).

It's simply unfathomable to the consensus media that the One they worked
so hard to elect could be a fraud -- or, at minimum, could have something to
hide.

Unfortunately, Sheriff Joe Arpaio's team of law enforcement and
investigative experts were able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
forgeries have been committed. It turns out that the sheriff simply confirmed
the "open secret" shared by technical document experts across the country.
As with many crimes, if not for their abject carelessness, the forgers
might have gotten away with it. But the strength of the evidence is such that
local law enforcement was able to conclude that "probable cause" exists to
show that the White House uploaded a computer-generated forgery of a birth
certificate. Ditto with Obama's Selective Service registration form: it
is also a crude forgery.

Who would have thought that Obama's illegal immigration nemesis, Sheriff
Joe Arpaio, could turn the tables on Obama?

With the help of his friends in the consensus media, Mr. Obama had been
afforded the luxury of effectively remaining silent for years. Obama was
able to sit back as a third-party onlooker as the media attacked, maligned, and
ignored those who raised valid questions.

But the recent findings are similar to the events of a trial in which the
burden of proof shifts from one party to the other. In our context, the
burden of proof was absurdly placed on the people, but finally it has shifted
to Obama. The six-month investigation by trained law enforcement and
forensic experts has resulted in a compelling case-in-chief.

Anyone who views the video presentations of the law enforcement team can
plainly observe the sea change which shifted the burden to rebut to Obama.

Even though crimes were allegedly committed, at this point, what is taking
place is comparable to a civil trial. As such, it is time for Mr. Obama
to produce competent evidence. If he has no evidence to produce, he's in
public opinion trouble. If a court or Congress forces the production of his
original documents, it's over for Obama.

Simple little mistakes: hastily uploading an assembled image without first
printing and scanning, and cutting a "2008" rubber stamp to create the
appearance of "1980." And the Selective Service forgery alone is enough to
end Obama's presidency.

Sheriff Arpaio is under personal attack, but curiously, the control-test
findings of his team are not being refuted. Apparently oblivious of the
fact that the White House tried to cover its tracks by quickly replacing its
original file image, NPR naively reports: "For the record, we opened the
file using Adobe Photoshop and found that [the birth certificate] contained
only a single layer of information." Fortunately, thousands have the
original White House posting preserved for perpetuity.

The establishment media are trying every way they can think of to
discredit Sheriff Joe. As WND.com president Joseph Farah recently wrote, "[t]hey
are no longer just protecting Obama. They are now protecting their own
reputations." The problem, of course, is that after all the attacks on Joe
Arpaio are exhausted and after all the dust settles, the evidence of Obama's
forgeries will remain.

The problem for Obama and his enablers is that the evidence is objective.
And it's there for everyone to see. Generations from now, professors in
Adobe Photoshop and journalism classes will be discussing and analyzing the
evidence of Obama's forgeries.

The very result that timid conservatives and liberal reporters feared will
eventually catch up with them: loss of credibility.

On the flipside, those who questioned Obama's bizarre secrecy eventually
will be vindicated.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_sea_change_obamas_confirmed_forg
eries_are_not_going_away.html#ixzz1ssg3rVhQ_
<http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/the_sea_change_obamas_confirmed_forg%20eries_are_not_going_away.html#ixzz1ssg3rVhQ_>

ccp · « **Reply #1139 on:** April 23, 2012, 12:15:42 PM »

I really don't see how this is NOT an impeachable offense. To offer a fraudualant document as valid identification on the WH website to the entire world is frankly worse than the cover up of a break in (by Nixon) in my opinion.

Is the media picking up on this at all other than some talk radio?

ccp · « **Reply #1140 on:** April 23, 2012, 12:45:47 PM »

Evidence of fraud debunked??? Or is this bunk?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp

DougMacG · « **Reply #1141 on:** April 23, 2012, 01:08:34 PM »

CCP, Yes, prove fraud and he is out. Short of that I don't see an endgame to the birth certificate forgery story. I don't worship snopes but it sure looks like this has been looked at thoroughly. The Dan Rather forgery in contrast was unraveling on the internet (Free Republic and Powerline) within minutes of the story and document release. Nothing shifts the burden back to Obama short of one renowned expert demonstrating to everyone that the document presented is without a doubt a forgery.

There is no reason to doubt Obama was born in this country. His mom is from Kansas and Washington state and lived in Hawaii before his birth and Washington right after. She was never photographed offshore in that time. 9 months pregnant is no time to travel from Hawaii to Kenya - check the map on that, 10844.3 miles and further with flight connections. Not something the grandparents would have sprung for, just to give birth. There are no other borders close to Hawaii. If it was to get away from family in Hawaii they would have stayed away. There was no reason to visit 'family' in Kenya; Barack Sr's other wives lived there, and they didn't go there as a couple or a family before or after that. The only other theory is that Barack Sr is not the father and Barack Jr. was born perhaps earlier. At this point, so what. Except that IF this is BS and coverup, it becomes a Nixon-like breach of public trust.

Until then, the birth certificate issue is the shiny object distracting attention away from the issues and the record.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1142 on:** April 23, 2012, 02:53:34 PM »

Sounds like you are on top of this Doug. I guess I just keeping hoping

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1143 on:** April 23, 2012, 03:03:12 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-lavish-lifestyle-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/#commentblock

DougMacG · « **Reply #1144 on:** April 23, 2012, 06:56:36 PM »

"I guess I just keeping hoping"

If the incumbent is forced off the ticket after the primary season, the powers of the party will put Hillary on the ballot, or Joe Biden!

We need to get rid of this guy the old fashioned way, not the Chicago way. By defeating his ideas. At the ballot box. By converting some voters. Demotivating his base and energizing ours. By chipping some votes off of key Dem constituencies, like cutting 20 points off of his advantage with young voters and winning over a few Latinos that don't want their grandchildren paying $30 trillion plus interest in debt. We need to double our black vote from 3 to 6%,lol. Win the key swing states, the electoral count, the House and the Senate with a specific and identifiable mandate.

What I meant with my prediction that President Obama will not be the nominee of his own party was that moderate, non-radical Dems would rise up, reach to the middle and offer an alternative. Jim Webb, Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, a swing state governor like Colorado's hickelberry(sp?)! I was wrong. Forcing Hillary or Biden up the ticket with the same management team is not a change.

It is too late now. We want the incumbent and his record on the ballot. MHO.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1145 on:** April 24, 2012, 03:39:15 AM »

A fair piece of reasoning.

This one is for GM in particular:
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2012/04/23/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daybydaycartoon%2FkUnt+%28Day+by+Day+Cartoon+by+Chris+Muir%29#006500

DougMacG · « **Reply #1146 on:** April 24, 2012, 07:19:19 AM »

Re. GM post on Political Economics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q63yE4dhiPU&feature=player_embedded

How do you go from getting elected by saying to the voters:

"You pay as you go. If you want to start a new program, then you've gotta cut an old program that doesn't work" ...

to governing like he did...

to even running for reelection.

Why would anyone take him seriously?

(Republicans in name only spent way too much in the 2000s, but the deficit was $161 billion in the year that Pelosi-Reid-Obama-Biden-Clinton and a number of currently vulnerable Senators took power in Washington by sweeping both chambers of congress and it has averaged 1.3 Trillion during the Obama Presidency.) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_deficit

ccp · « **Reply #1147 on:** April 24, 2012, 07:35:58 AM »

"the powers of the party will put Hillary on the ballot"

There is already promotional talk of a Hillary VP slot *with* Brockman.

Of course that would in *their* minds be "formidable".

They do fit together - two of the most corrupt pols we have ever seen.

Crafty_Dog · « **Reply #1148 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:17:30 AM »

I saw an extended interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN with Hillary and Leon Panetta while I was in Munich. A real soft interview of course, but I must say that Hillary is seeming warmer, more human, and more likable recently. She and P. were laughing and joking with each other a lot. It seemed like their personal comfort level was very high. Not saming I'm buying it, but what with pictures of her drinking beer, partying, and other things, on top of a lot of people thinking she has been well seasoned by her stint as SecState, I do think that she would make a formidable addition to Baraq's chances. A lot of women would see her as being a shoo-in for 2016 after VPing for 2012-2016.

DougMacG · « **Reply #1149 on:** April 24, 2012, 08:59:28 AM »

After serving in the Senate and Sec of State and having been the most recent runner up, she is no longer what she was, a woman who only got what where she did on the coattails of her husband - and that criticism never stopped her either. Nor did the fact that she is a felon in the commodities case except for the expiration of the statute of limitations and was the center of the corruption in Arkansas for all those years where everyone except the Clintons went to prison for her business dealings.

She is as qualified as Condoleeza Rice and more, certainly enough to be VP. Yes that would add change and excitement (for someone) to the ticket. Joe Biden, though stupid, may know enough about the Chicago way to know that if that is what they want, he must step down. There is an Ambassador job open somewhere or he could 'spend more time with family'. OTOH, Biden is the least of Obama's problems right now.

And maybe Dems will remember why they turned her away last time. Her speeches will be mostly vacuous in content as she will be stuck with defending Barack Obama's economic record. Loose and relaxed (and prone to steal the show) may not be the level of discipline the masterminds of the reelection are looking for. Her job in the reelection will be attack dog so the new relaxed look would turn ugly quickly. After 4 years of failure she wouldn't be allowed to say a word about how she would have done things differently.

She might be better positioned in 2016 if she can start distancing herself from the domestic side of this tragic chapter in our history. Link back instead to the more center-left governing of the 90s, balanced budgets, etc.

Too bad that with either Hillary or Biden that they are not grooming any new leaders with more traditional Dem values for the future.

News:

Author Topic: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness (Read 859071 times)

Hello Kitty

Hello Kitty

Hello Kitty