Il frappe très, très fort, et il frappe là où ça fait mal… Je suis plongé dans le best-seller de l’année de Jerome Corsi qui a contribué à la chute dans les sondages du candidat démocrate. C’est édifiant ! Je conseille l’investissement à tout le monde !
Preface
Who I Am and Why I Wrote This Book
In 2004, I coauthored Unfit for Command: Swift Boat VeteransSpeak Out Against John Kerry, with Swift Boat veteran John O’Neill, ahighly successful attorney in Houston, Texas, and a longtime friend Ifirst met more than forty years ago, in college. In the 1960s, JohnO’Neill attended the U.S. Naval Academy while I was attending CaseWestern Reserve University and we competed in intercollegiate debate.
Unfit for Command was a critical analysis of John Kerry’smilitary service during the Vietnam War and his radical antiwar protestactivities as a lead spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against theWar when he returned from Vietnam. Any implication that this book is a“Swift Boat” book is not accurate in that John O’Neill and the othermembers of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have had nothing to dowith this book, its analysis and arguments, or my opposition to BarackObama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
My intent in writing this book, as was the case in coauthoringUnfit for Command, is to fully document all arguments and contentions Imake, extensively footnoting all references, so readers can determinefor themselves the truth and validity of the factual claims. Myfundamental opposition to Obama’s presidential candidacy involvespublic policy differences. While Obama’s three complete years in theSenate have given him remarkably little time on the national politicalstage, we still have enough information from his slim Senate record, aswell as his years in the Illinois state legislature, to see a patternof voting on the far left on a wide range of policy issues, includingabortion, taxes, illegal immigration, international trade, and nationalsecurity.
In this book, I intend to argue that an Obama presidency wouldlead us into an “Obama Nation.” The play on words is fully intended,because Obama’s radical leftist politics, driven by the cult ofpersonality he has intentionally manufactured, would be an abomination in that the result of those policies would be to lead the United Statesin a costly and self-destructive direction, both at home and abroad.After an Obama presidency, we would be a militarily weakened andeconomically diminished nation. Instead of being more united, ourinternal conflicts could well become more sharpened and more abrasivefrom four years of Obama leadership.
Obama has so doggedly positioned himself on the extreme leftthat it is doubtful he can credibly move to the political centerwithout alienating his Democratic Party supporters on that extreme leftas well as his youthful base. This, in many ways, was the liabilitySenator George McGovern faced in running against President RichardNixon in 1972. After McGovern won the nomination on a radical antiwarplatform, Nixon was able to show the vast majority of center-rightvoters that McGovern’s policies spelled defeat in Vietnam, even thoughNixon himself withdrew from the war less than two years later.
In the race against Barack Obama in the general election, theRepublican Party will have a decided advantage because of theprolonged, acrimonious primary campaign Obama and Hillary Clinton wagedagainst each other in 2008. The Republican Party now has hours of videoready to be played back to American voters in campaign advertisements,repeating Clinton’s and Obama’s abrasive comments about the other.
Obama first drew my attention in 2004, when he stepped onto thenational political stage by addressing the Democratic NationalConvention that nominated Kerry for the presidency. My preliminarydecision to write this book was made in 2005, immediately after Obamawas sworn in to the U.S. Senate. Since he was a child, Obama has beenmaking statements that he intended to be president, and in 2005 Isuspected he would attempt to use the U.S. Senate as a stepping-stonefor the presidency.
So I began researching Obama and following him in the Senate;I’d frequently sit in the Senate gallery to observe him on the Senatefloor, and watched him on C-SPAN as he debated and voted onlegislation. I finalized the decision to write this book in March 2008,as Hillary Clinton continued her presidential campaign despite delegatenumbers that made it likely Obama would win the 2008 presidentialnomination in the Democratic Party. I calculated that publishing thebook before the Democratic National Convention would likely have animpact, even if Hillary beat the odds and ultimately won thenomination. Yet, I did not write the book to promote Hillary Clinton’scandidacy, nor did I publish it before the national nominatingconvention in the Democratic Party to assist her in getting thenomination on the convention floor. If Hillary Clinton were thenominee, I would oppose her too.
I have never been a registered member of the Republican orDemocratic Party, unless voting in some particular state primary overthe past forty years necessitated that result. The only political partyI ever consciously joined is the Constitution Party, of which I am aregistered member in the state of New Jersey, where I currently reside.Let me also clearly state that I am writing this book strictly toexamine and oppose Barack Obama, not to support Senator John McCain orany other Republican Party or third-party candidate for the presidency.
While I intend to vote in 2008 for Chuck Baldwin, thepresidential candidate of the Constitution Party, this book was begunbefore that party had chosen a 2008 presidential candidate and is notintended to be an argument for Chuck Baldwin. I also want to make clearthe Constitution Party asked me to run as its presidential candidate in2008, but I declined, preferring instead to remain with World NetDaily, where I am currently employed as a senior staff reporter.
Obama is running to be the nation’s first African-Americanpresident. Since the 1960s, I have been studying and writing about U.S.racial relations. In all my writings on that subject, I have been astrong opponent of any form of racial violence and a strong advocatefor eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, inequality, andinjustice.
In 2006, I supported Ken Blackwell in his campaign as theRepublican candidate for governor of Ohio. Once again, my backgroundstudying racial relations was relevant, as Blackwell sought to be thefirst African-American governor of Ohio. Seeking to advance Blackwell’s2006 gubernatorial campaign, I coauthored with him a book titledRebuilding America: A Prescription for Creating Strong Families,Building the Wealth of Working People, and Ending Welfare.
Many of my policy criticisms of Obama stem from argumentsinitially made with Ken Blackwell in writing Rebuilding America,especially the analysis of the importance of families in buildingmiddle-class wealth, reducing the incidence of teenage pregnancies, andalleviating poverty.
Blackwell, a conservative, had served in 2004 as Ohio’ssecretary of state, and so presided over his state’s voting in the 2004presidential election, which George W. Bush narrowly won over JohnKerry. It was in Ohio that Bush secured the final electoral votesneeded to be elected president in yet another historically closecontest. I did not meet Blackwell or work with him in any capacityuntil 2005, months after the 2004 campaign was over.
My interest in U.S. racial politics dates back to my days as anundergraduate student in political science at Case Western ReserveUniversity, in Cleveland. As a political science student, I wrotepapers published in law journals on legal assistance for the poor andon the Detroit race riots of 1967. The Hough Riots in Cleveland in 1966led me to coauthor, with two Case Western Reserve professors, a booktitled A Time To Burn? This was one of the first college textbooks onracial relations that used the race riots of the 1960s as a centralfocus of analysis. In 1966, I also studied Reverend Jesse Jackson’sefforts to bring “Operation Breadbasket,” begun by Reverend MartinLuther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Council, to Chicago.
In 1967, while completing my senior year at Case WesternReserve, I worked full-time in downtown Cleveland with Edward Howard& Co., one of the nation’s first public relations firms (it wasestablished in 1925). I was an assistant to William Silverman, Jr., thevice president, who served as public relations manager for Seth Taft,the Republican Party candidate opposing Democrat Carl B. Stokes to bemayor of Cleveland.
My duties at Edward Howard & Co. during the Stokes-Taftrace included bird-dogging Carl Stokes in the field by following him onhis public appearances and reporting back the contents of his speechesand any relevant information regarding attendees, crowd size, andaudience reaction. My work was fully disclosed to the Stokes campaignand I was welcomed at virtually every Carl Stokes campaign event Ichose to attend. I observed Reverend King in Cleveland as he visitedthe city to aid in a voter registration drive and campaign for Stokesin 1967. On November 7, 1967, Stokes was elected the firstAfrican-American mayor of a major U.S. city.
On July 23, 1968, in my last summer in Cleveland before movingto Cambridge, Massachusetts, there was a gun battle between AhmedEvans, an African-American militant, along with his armed followers,and the Cleveland police in Glenville, an inner-city neighborhood. Theshooting went on for an hour and a half, leaving seven people dead andfifteen wounded. Fifteen of the casualties were policemen. For the nextfive days, a riot flared in Glenville and the surrounding East Sidecommunities; the burning and looting were typical of 1960s race riots.
In my first year at Harvard University, where I was pursuing aPh.D. in political science, I coauthored with Louis H. Masotti, Ph.D.,a report titled “Shoot-Out in Cleveland. Black Militants and thePolice: July 23, 1968.” The report, then widely known as the “MasottiReport,” was published as a staff report to the Eisenhower Commission,formally known as the National Commission on the Causes and Preventionof Violence, as well as in two commercially published editions. I hadstudied under Masotti at Case Western Reserve both as a politicalscience student and as a research associate at the Civil ViolenceResearch Center, which Masotti headed.
As part of my studies at Harvard, I continued researchingracial violence, student protests, and the antiwar movement as aresearch associate at the Lemberg Center for the Study of Violence atBrandeis University. One of my projects involved studying the widerange of civil rights and protest literature of that time. For example,at Harvard Square in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, the BlackMuslims frequently distributed such literature, including free copiesof their newspaper. A subfocus of that study became the anti-Semiticdiatribes the Black Muslim movement launched at Jews. I initially foundthe harsh feelings surprising; my assumption had been that oppressedAfrican-Americans and Jews would be sympathetic to one another; theJews have suffered centuries of their own oppression. While we foundaffinity between the intellectual views of Jews on the political leftand the anger of African- American radicals, we also found antipathy inthe black communities toward Jewish shop owners, who often becamevictims of burning and looting in urban race riots.
The Lemberg Center was where I conducted my first field studiesof John Kerry and his participation with Vietnam Veterans Against theWar. I personally observed various race riots, student demonstrations,and antiwar protests, and examined the literature that was distributedat these events as explanation and political justification.
In 1980 and 1981, after the takeover of the U.S. Embassy inTehran, I was recruited as a political scientist by the U.S. Agency forInternational Development to assist the State Department on apsychiatrist-led team that had been organized to teach hostage survivalskills to U.S. embassy employees and staff worldwide. For this work, Ireceived a Top Secret security clearance. The project was led bypsychiatrist David Hubbard, a noted expert on skyjacking. My workincluded extensive psychological research and training, withinstruction from Dr. Hubbard. I analyzed prison interview transcriptsand films of a variety of convicted felons, including bank robbers,rapists, and terrorists.
By 1982, I had left academia to pursue a career in financialservices that continues to this day. After coauthoring Unfit forCommand, I decided to devote the majority of my time to writing aboutpolitics. As a Senior Staff Reporter for World Net Daily, I investigateand write about a wide range of issues, including the economy, oilpolicy, trade agreements, foreign affairs, and domestic politics. Oneor more of my articles are published nearly every day.
Islam is part of this book, both in examining Obama’sbackground and in looking at policy areas including Islamic terrorismand our relations with Iran. I have been studying and writing aboutterrorism and Islamic extremism for over twenty-five years. Thisincludes a game theoretic analysis of terrorism published by a notedjournal at Yale University.
I have written or co-written two books on Iran: Atomic Iran andShowdown with Nuclear Iran. In the preface to Atomic Iran, I went onrecord supporting Islam as a genuine and important religion, with morethan one billion believers throughout the world. I also acknowledgedthe proud three-thousand-year history of Iran, carefully distinguishingmy opposition to the radical terrorists and clerics controlling thecurrent Islamic Republic of Iran. I have opposed the United States’ orIsrael’s going to war with Iran, arguing instead that we should supportthe millions of Iranian expatriates around the world and the thousandsof brave freedom fighters within Iran who seek to bring true liberty totheir country peacefully.
Finally, let me clearly state that this book has been writtensolely on my initiative. There has been no attempt made, nor will therebe any attempt made, to communicate the shape or contents of this bookwith anyone in the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, theConstitution Party, or in any third party with a candidate running forthe presidency.
In contrast to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama has not beenvetted, not even by Democrats. Even today he is largely an unknown toall but a small handful of dogged political professionals and aconcentrated core of political junkies who inhabit Internet blogs.Thus, in this book I have pursued Obama’s extensive connections withIslam and with radical racial politics, including those articulated bysuch extremists as Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan, in order to bringthese issues from the shadows where Obama has tried to keep themhidden. For this same reason, I have pursued Obama’s extensive andcontinuing connections with Kenya, the homeland of his father, whereObama has continued to involve himself personally in advancing thegoals of Raila Odinga, the radical socialist presidential contender whocomes from Obama’s home tribe. Even for Obama, his past is prelude, ina political world where voters legitimately see character as animportant predictor of policy.
Hence, I also document Obama’s emergence in Chicago politicsthrough the Saul Alinsky school of radical community organizing.Alinsky used the battle cry of “Change” as a code word for a socialistredistribution of wealth. I have also examined Obama’s involvement inthe slum landlord empire of Chicago political fixer Tony Rezko. Ireported questions about Rezko’s use of a loan from Nadhmi Auchi, aMiddle Eastern financial intermediary, to help Obama finance thepurchase of his dream-home property in Chicago.
The nation went into 2008 with a struggling economy and acontinuing war in the Middle East. Radical Islamic terrorist enemiescontinue to plot our demise, while growing numbers of largely Hispanicillegal immigrants, many of them still citizens of their homecountries, including Mexico, live in our midst with no firm purpose orrequirement to become American citizens. Meanwhile, urbanAfrican-American poverty has become generational and persistent,hardened by the continuance of an alarming rate of teenage pregnanciesand abortions. These problems of racial disadvantage have not beendiminished by more than four decades of well-intentioned butineffective welfare-state programs that many would argue have actuallybeen counterproductive. I will argue that the policies reflected inObama’s legislative history or suggested in his presidential campaignare nothing more than a rerun of far-leftist solutions that have beentried many times but to no avail.
Obama’s life story, a subject Obama himself put on the agendaby writing an autobiography, is relevant only to the extent itilluminates public policy goals and objectives Obama is likely topursue. In the final analysis, what I seek to prevent by writing thisbook is an Obama presidency that would represent nothing more than arepeat of the failed extremist politics that have characterized andplagued Democratic Party presidential politics since the late 1960s.With Obama, the leftist political correctness enforced by his campaignhas even intervened to prevent anyone from using his middle name, whichhappens to be Hussein.
Put simply, the argument here is that Barack Obama is more of aMichael Dukakis, a George McGovern, a Jimmy Carter, or a John Kerrythan he is a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or even a John F. Kennedy.
From THE OBAMA NATION: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality byJerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Copyright (c) 2008 by Jerome Corsi. Published byarrangement with Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster,Inc.
FNC
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,395823,00.html
First Look at Controversial Obama Book
FNC
sa fait plaisir , on parle encore d’un Cors(i)…..: )
Resumons le posting de Sebaneau en anglais…
Traduction: “Dites moi deux bons points sur Obama”.
Corsi: Principalement, il sait tres bien lire son speech sur un teleprompter. Et j’admire ses costumes; il s’habille tres bien.
Sebaneau, vous etes d’un rassurant!!
Letter to the Editor
Print This Article
Email This Article
About RSS Feeds
Political Hay
Obama Can’t Be Trusted on National Defense
By Peter Ferrara, American Spectator, 17 September 2008
How can a major American political party — and what kind of politicalparty would accept and allow an individual to be pushed forward andlifted to their party’s nomination for President of the United States,
– who has close ties and very friendly relations for twenty years with aradical “black liberation theology” preacher who blames the white manand America for every problem,
– who has close ties for at least 15 yearsto an unrepentant domestic terrorist (William Ayers) and hiswife(Bernadine Dohrn) that included various board member relations andpolitical coming out parties,
– who was mentored (8 years?) as a veryimpressionable young man by an admitted card carrying Communist partyUSA member (Frank Marshall Davis),
– who has very close ties to variousradical muslim groups and Islamists,
– who took an unexplained trip toPakistan when Americans were forbidden to travel to that country in the1980’s and still has not explained how he entered that country since anAmerican passport would have been rejected,
– who admittedly gravitatedto the radical elements (Socialists, Anarchists, communists, anti-Americatypes, fringe outcast types) on campus when at college,
– who used hisposition as US Senator and traveled to Kenya twice to support andcampaign for a Muslim cousin (from the same tribe that his fathercame) who was attempting to be elected to president of Kenya andsubsequently caused mass riots, mayhem and death (to Christians) postKenyan election,
– who refuses to release any information regardinggrades, transcripts and senior thesis related to his college experienceat Occidental, Columbia and Harvard,
– who has “lost” his Illinois StateSenate files,
– who was recruited while at Columbia by a disciple of SaulAlinsky (Marxist) to become a “community organizer” affiliated with thecorrupt ACORN in Chicago Illinois,
– who was chairman of an Annenbergfunded organization (founded by William Ayers) in Chicago that burnedthrough over 100 million dollars with no accountability….allocatingfunds to very shady and questionable recipients,
– who as an IllinoisState Senator maintained very nefarious and questionable relationshipswith the likes of individuals such as convicted felon TonyRezko… funneling him at least 14 million dollars to “refurbish” low-income housing by using the power of his political position, and manyother questionable relationships and dealings,
– as well as admitting tousing cocaine and marijuana on a regular basis at certain periods inhis life?
WHAT KIND OF POLITICAL PARTY WOULD ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL WITH THESECREDENTIALS TO RISE AS THEIR NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
Answer: An absolutely corrupt, subversive, deceitful, morallybankrupt, unscrupulous, anti-America party, that has no traditionalAmerican values left in it’s platform and has been taken over byextremist leftists and has totally lost its way.
My point is this: Barack Obama would not pass a background check tobe hired by the local police force in any town, let alone be Presidentof the United States!
Barack Obama would fail a background check and beineligible to be employed by the FBI, CIA or Secret Service. The verysecret service that is charged with protecting the President of theUnited States!
Barack Obama would not qualify for even the lowest ofsecurity clearances based on his past relationships and actions.
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2008/09/15/parsing-the-ny-times-on-palin/
“Unfit for Publication” – The Cover
The cover of the 41-page Obama rebuttal to “The Obama Nation:Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality” is entitled “Unfit forPublication.” The cover appears to be an imitation of the cover for”Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out against John Kerry,”which I co-authored in 2004. A seal on the cover proclaims, “Brought toYou by: Bush/Cheney Attack Machine.”
The mocking tenor of the cover characterizes the Obama rebuttal notas a piece of serious scholarly or legal analysis of “The ObamaNation,” but as a political attack piece. What proof is there that “The Obama Nation” is a product of the”Bush/Cheney Smear Machine”? What proof is there that a Bush/Cheney”smear machine” even exists? Even more fundamentally, what do we meanby a “Bush/Cheney smear machine” in the first place, since the term isasserted but never defined?
A quick examination of my prior book entitled “The Late Great USA:The Coming Merger of Mexico and Canada” (Jerome R. Corsi, The LateGreat USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada (Los Angeles, CA,WND Books, Published by World Ahead Media, 2007) involved a sharpcriticism of the Bush/Cheney Security and Prosperity Partnership ofNorth America, or SPP. That book argued the Bush administration wasleading the U.S. on a similar path to that taken in Europe over the nowmore than 50 years since 1957, where trade agreements led to theformation of a regional government complete with a regional currency.
By placing “Unfit for Publication” as the title of the mock-book, does the Obama rebuttal mean to suggest an Obama administration mighthave a censorship department in which a book critical of a PresidentObama might be banned from publication? Then, the bottom bar on thecover reads, “An Investigative Report on the Lies in Jerome Corsi’s’Obama Nation.'” This statement presumes as true I have lied in writing”The Obama Nation,” when whether or not I have lied remains to beproved by the body of the document.
In other words, the point of writing a legitimate rebuttal would beto prove that I have lied in writing “The Obama Nation,” not simply toassert so. As we shall see, asserting as true that what is not yetproved is only one of the many glaring logical errors made in the Obamarebuttal.
“Unfit for Publication” is so defective on logic, argumentation andevidence we wonder if the Obama campaign ever reviewed the piece beforethe Obama operatives rushed it into print.
Finally, a bar from Time Magazine proclaiming “The Obama Nation” is”Trash” and “Poisonous Crap” is insulting, but not proof. Placing thisbar on the mock-cover’s upper right corner only emphasizes that “Unfitfor Publication” is a political attack piece aimed at a book the Obamacampaign would prefer no one would read.
First Page of “Unfit for Publication”
The first page of “Unfit for Publication” is titled “Setting theRecord Straight on the Lies in Jerome Corsi’s ‘The Obama Nation.'”
Again, we repeat the logical error here is to assert without proof that there are lies in “The Obama Nation.”
The political bias of this page is apparent. My name is introduced as “bigoted fringe author Jerome Corsi,” an intentionally derogatorystatement that is asserted without proof. Launching such abuse oncritics would be beneath the dignity of most presidential politicalcampaigns at the highest level, but hurling insults seems the modus operandi of the Obama campaign in their reaction to “The Obama Nation.” The first page next asserts “claims” never made in “The Obama Nation.”
“The Obamas never gave a million dollars to a Kenyan politician,”the first page asserts. Yet “The Obama Nation” never made this claim.”The Obama Nation” notes a memorandum is circulating in Kenya that”Friends of Senator BO” gave approximately $1 million to thepresidential campaign of Raila Odinga, but “The Obama Nation” noted theauthenticity of that document is still in question.
The first page asserts “Obama has no secret plan to destroy themilitary.” Again, “The Obama Nation” made no such claim. “The ObamaNation” claimed instead that an Obama presidency would leave the UnitedStates a militarily weakened nation.
Following a heading in bold print entitled, “The author: adiscredited, fringe bigot,” the Obama rebuttal mocks as a”conspiratorial view” that “He [Corsi] believes that President Bush istrying to merge the United states (sic) with Mexico and Canada.” As Idocumented in my last book, “The Late Great USA,” the SPP created 20bureaucratic trilateral working groups dedicated to “integrating andharmonizing” a wide range of U.S. administrative laws and regulationswith Mexico and Canada. Does the Obama campaign deny the existence ofthe SPP working groups as documented on the government’s own website athttp://www.spp.gov.?
The Obama campaign would also be well advised to consult ChristopherBooker and Richard North’s 2003 book entitled “The Great Deception,”(Christopher Booker and Richard North, The Great Deception: The SecretHistory of the European Union (London and New York, Continuum, 2003) inwhich they argue an elite in Europe executed an agenda never fullydisclosed to the European people, with the aim of creating an EuropeanUnion out of a series of economic agreements beginning with the coaland steel agreement reached in 1957. The argument of North Americanintegration has historical precedent in Europe and is not an argumentthat rational thinkers can dismiss without debate.
Next, the Obama rebuttal asserts, “He [Corsi] believes that there isa literally unending supply of oil beneath the ground.” This is not anecessary corollary of the abiotic theory of the origin of oil which Iargue in my book co-authored with Craig Smith, entitled “Black GoldStranglehold.” (Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black GoldStranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil (Nashville:WND Books, an Imprint of Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2005) As wedemonstrated in this book, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil has predominated in the Russia and the Ukraine since the end of WorldWar II. Russia is now the world’s second largest producer of oil, despite U.S. geologists driven by the organic theory of the origin ofoil telling the Soviet Union at the end of WWII that the country’spotential for finding oil was minimal. The book predicted correctly oil would hit $100 a barrel and that new deep-earth finds of oil would bemade, such as the discoveries recently made in the Gulf of Mexico andthe Atlantic Ocean off Brazil. Even if oil is made on a continuingbasis by chemical processes occurring in the mantle of the earth, thatalone would not necessarily imply the supply of oil is “unending.”
Then, the Obama rebuttal claims, “And in perhaps the gravest signthat his views can’t be trusted, he [Corsi] alleges a governmentcover-up of the 9/11 attacks and denies that airplanes were to blamefor the towers’ collapse.” The Obama campaign can find nothing I haveever published to substantiate those claims. I did publish, however, anarticle in WorldNetDaily on Feb. 29, 2008, that examined a testconducted at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.The video accompanying my article showed a F4 jet vaporizing on impact with a 700-ton concrete block. (Jerome R. Corsi, “Sept. 11 redux: Videoshows jet vaporizing,” WorldNetDaily, Feb. 29, 2008.) The test was conducted to demonstrate whether a proposed Japanesenuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy airliner. AsI noted in the article, the video of the F-4 being pulverized on impactwith a hardened target provides evidence to answer 9/11 skeptics whoquestion why so little identifiable airplane debris remained after thehijacked American Airlines Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Let me state categorically here that I continue to support theconclusions of the 9/11 Commission that the cause of the 9/11 attacks were the hijackers who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I see no credible evidence that the U.S. governmentwas involved or complicit in causing the 9/11 attacks.
Next, the front page references comments I wrote anonymously onFreeRepublic.com. I have repeatedly apologized for these comments andstated the comments did not reflect my true beliefs then or now. Yet,the Obama rebuttal reports these comments as if the campaign found themfor the first time in 2008, neglecting the extensive vetting of thecomments that has occurred since they were first discovered in 2004.
As noted before, “Unfit for Publication” is an attack piece thatmakes no claim of fairness or even accuracy in asserting theirone-sided presentation of half truths. Finally, even if the argumentsof “The Late Great USA” and “Black Gold Stranglehold” were false, thatalone would not prove false what is written in “The Obama Nation.”Logically, the argument that statements made in “The Obama Nation” are”lies” is not proven by reference to other works, including books Ihave written on totally unrelated topics. Nor are the “lies” proven byreference to my unrelated and now disavowed comments onFreeRepublic.com. Proving “lies” in “The Obama Nation” demands provingthe statements cited by the Obama rebuttal from “The Obama Nation”itself are false, without reference to any of my other writings.
“THE REVIEWS ARE IN!”
In the next section of “The Obama Nation,” the authors produce aseries of quotations from various newspapers, magazines and politicalwebsites which are critical of “The Obama Nation.”
The section begins with the claim that
“Corsi’s falsehoods aboutBarack Obama have been discredited by numerous news organizations,which have questioned his ‘scholarship,’ his conclusions, and hisideological bias.”
Again, a counting of critical reviews does not prove “The ObamaNation” contains lies. Logically, the critics could all be wrong, orthemselves politically motivated.If truth were determined by voting, those challenging conventionalbeliefs would never be vindicated and the Christopher Columbus andGalileo figures of history would be mere footnotes to folly.
Simply put, the standard of truth is never reducible to opinion, nomatter how many newspapers, magazines and political websites the Obamacampaign chooses to cite in falsely concluding the views expressed bycritics establishes anything, except for their opinion itself.
We should also note the vitriol of many of the opinions selected bythe Obama campaign for inclusion in their rebuttal. The intensity ofthe animosity for “The Obama Nation” expressed by these selectedcomments suggests “Unfit for Publication” itself is a hate piece, committing the same errors the Obama campaign accuses were the fault inmy FreeRepublic.com comments that I continue to disavow.
“FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN CORSI’S BOOK”
The next section of the Obama rebuttal claims “Corsi’s book is rife with inaccuracies.”
In the next sentence, the rebuttal says, “He [Corsi] claims to have700 footnotes …” “The Obama Nation” does have 681 footnotes, nearly 700given number rounding. This is not a claim, it is a fact.
Let’s go through alleged the “factual inaccuracies” one by one. Thepage references in the “Lie” sections of the Obama rebuttal refer topages in “The Obama Nation.”
No. 1.
“Lie”
“Nowhere in the autobiography does Obama disclose that his wife-to-be accompanied him to Africa on the 1992 trip.” [p. 25]
“Reality”
“Obama Wrote about Taking Michelle to Kenya.”
Rejoinder to No. 1
As proof of this “lie,” the Obama campaign references page 439 ofObama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” citing a paragraph inwhich Obama mentions taking Michelle to Kenya “after our engagement.”
Page 439 comes from the “Epilogue” to “Dreams,” on the fourth lastpage in the book, not in the text of the book itself. As I argued,Obama does not mention taking Michelle to Obama in the third majorsection of “Dreams,” devoted to describing his experiences in Kenya. This is not an important distinction.
My point on page 25 of “The Obama Nation” derived from my telephoneinterview with Sayid Obama, the senator’s uncle, in Kenya. Sayid Obamamade the point that Obama has been in Africa three times – in 1986,then in 1992, when he was collecting material for “Dreams,” and in2006, when he visited Kenya as a U.S. senator. “The Obama Nation”argues that “Dreams” does not make clear Obama took two separate trips before the autobiography was published. On page 25, I also write:
“Rather, we are presented with what evidently is a composite ofexperiences from both trips, without any way of knowing which relatedexperiences came when.”
The Obama rebuttal does not dispute thisargument.
Obama tells us his autobiography is not a chronological discussion,that dialogue is fictionalized and composite characters are created,while the identity of other key players is hidden by pseudonyms. Theseclaims are made on pages 13-14 of “The Obama Nation” and are notdisputed by the Obama rebuttal.
My main point in this section, also not disputed by the Obamarebuttal, comes in my discussion of my interview with Daily Mail reporter Rob Crilly, who told me,
“We would be surprised to discoverthat Obama allows elements of the truth to surface in the text, at theend of the book, in the third-section discussion of Obama’s trip toKenya. Even then we get the truth obliquely, in a manner that stillrequires some considerable effort to decipher.”
None of this isdisputed in the Obama rebuttal.
An “Epilogue” is an addendum after the book is finished. Obama doesnot devote a section in the body of the text to discussing thatMichelle went with him to Africa in 1992. Obama does not explicitlydiscuss or distinguish the 1992 visit to Africa in the body of thetext. How much of the third section of “Dreams” is a blend of Obama’s1986 and 1992 experiences in Kenya? We simply do not know. The book isnot meant to be a chronological account of Obama’s life and he issilent on these important distinctions.
No. 2.
“Lie”
“Obama failed to discuss his father’s alcoholism and polygamy in hisautobiography.” [p. 24]
“Obama’s story of his father’s life is dense,presented in anything but a straightforward manner, often glorified orembellished so as to mask much of the harsh and, for Obama, probablypainful truth.” [p. 37]
“Reality”
“Obama Wrote Extensively about His Father’s Flaws in ‘Dreams.'”
Rejoinder to No. 2
In an obvious attempt to distort my meaning, the first sentence from”The Obama Nation” cited by the Obama rebuttal here is only half of theoriginal sentence in “The Obama Nation.” The original sentence frompage 24 of “The Obama Nation” discusses my telephone interview withDaily Mail reporter Rob Crilly and reads in full: “I asked [Crilly] whyObama failed to discuss his father’s alcoholism and polygamy in hisautobiography.” Note that at this point in my narrative I am notasserting as final that Obama failed to discuss his father’s alcoholismand polygamy in his autobiography, I am only asking Crilly if that istrue.
Crilly corrects me. Please read the next sentence in “The ObamaNation:”
“Crilly insisted Obama had discussed the truth, but he arguedObama made the truth difficult to discern in the book, especially sinceObama first presents a highly sympathetic portrait of his father.”
I accepted Crilly’s explanation, as should be apparent to any fairreader of “The Obama Nation.” The remainder of the paragraph inquestion reads:
“When we first read the book, Crilly argued, Obamaencourages us to see his father as a noble but poor African who emergesultimately to get a degree at Harvard, one of the most prestigiousuniversities in the world. Obama leads us to believe his fatherabandoned his mother and him only because economic restraints left hisfather no other choice. The problem, Crilly said, was that the truth,or what Obama chooses to reveal of the truth, comes only much later inthe book, and then only in pieces.”
Clearly, I accept in “The Obama Nation” that Obama does disclose hisfather was a polygamist and an habitual alcoholic who killed himself inthe last of a series of drunk driving incidents in Nairobi.
A close look at the quotations the Obama rebuttal uses here makes myexact point. All the citations from “Dreams” used here come from laterin the book and jump around. The first quotation from “Dreams” cited by”Unfit for Publication” comes from pages 216-217 of “Dreams,” followedby a quotation from page 200, then page 316 and 335, followed by aquotation from page 126, then quotations from page 213 and page 423,ending with a quotation from pages 265-266 of “Dreams,” evidently alsoaffirmed on page 218.
All these quotes cited in the Obama rebuttal come from the secondhalf of “Dreams” and demand the reader jump around in the book to getthe full picture.
Rather than refute my point here, the Obama rebuttal affirms the very point I was trying to make.
Moreover, in the quotations from “Dreams” “Unfit for Publication”cites, the Obama campaign now openly affirms the key substantivearguments made in “The Obama Nation” regarding Obama’s father: namelythat Obama Senior was “a bitter drunk;” that his first wife was Kezia, the mother to several of his children; that Obama Senior’s third wife, Ruth Nidesand who followed him to Kenya from Harvard, refused “to lie”with his first wife, Kezia; and that Obama Senior fathered a supposedlylast child with an unnamed woman.
Nor does “Unfit for Publication” refute the claim made by “The ObamaNation” on pages 26-27 that Sayid Obama, the senator’s uncle, wasunsure how many wives his brother, Obama Senior, had or how manyhalf-brothers and half-sisters Obama has – maybe six, maybe more.
No. 3
“Lie”
“We find there is even uncertainty whether Stanley Ann and ObamaSenior were ever married in a church. No marriage license for thisfirst marriage surfaces in any of the now-growing volume of researchbeing done … Yet even this remains murky.” [p. 44]
“Reality”
“Corsi Admits on the Same Page that Obama’s Parents Had a Legal American Marriage.”
Rejoinder to No. 3
To begin with, my only argument in the paragraph of “The ObamaNation” cited on page 44 is that there is no evidence that Obama’sfather and mother were married in a church. I am not arguing thatObama’s parents did not have a “legal American marriage.” Obviously, amarriage does not have to be in a church to be a “legal Americanmarriage” and I am not disputing that point in my book.
In other words, the “reality” argument in “Unfit for Publication” isnon-responsive in that two people can have a legal American marriage,even if the marriage does not occur in a church. A non-church marriagecan be legal if the couple gets a marriage license issued by a civilauthority and presents themselves for matrimony before any number ofofficials authorized by the state to conduct a marriage ceremony,including a justice of the peace.
If those writing the Obama rebuttal had bothered to read the entireparagraph cited on page 44 of “The Obama Nation,” they would have foundthe following:
“No marriage license for this marriage surfaces in thenow-growing volume of research being done, much of it for the firsttime, on Obama’s life. In discussing Stanley Ann and Obama Senior’smarriage, Obama comments,
‘In fact, how and when the marriage occurredremains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I’ve never had thecourage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, agiving away of the bride.’
Obama then suggests there was a small civilceremony with a justice of the peace. Others say divorce papers confirmthat a civil ceremony was held on Maui, on February 2, 1961, when Annwas three months pregnant with Obama.”
The Obama rebuttal refutes a “straw man” argument here, an argumentI never made.”Unfit for Publication” never establishes there was a church wedding.That was the proof needed to claim “The Obama Nation” was a “lie” onthis point. I argued Obama’s parents had a civil ceremony marriage andthat is all that is required for the marriage to be a “legal Americanmarriage.”
No. 4
“Lie”
“Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to histime in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes no reference to Maya’sbirth.” [p. 48]
“Reality”
“Obama Did Make Reference to His Sister’s Birth.”
Rejoinder to No. 4
The Obama rebuttal that the statement on page 48 of “The ObamaNation” is a lie hinges on a one-time mention in passing on page 47 of”Dreams” that Lolo and his mother remained cordial through the birth ofMaya, through the separation and ultimate divorce of his step-fatherand mother, up until the last time he saw Lolo, ten years later, whenhis mother helped Lolo travel to Los Angeles to treat a liver ailment that would kill him at the age of fifty-one.
The argument in “The Obama Nation” is that the second chapter ofObama’s autobiography “Dreams,” the chapter in the autobiographydevoted to discussing Obama’s experience in Indonesia, focusesprimarily on him, neglecting to devote a discussion to his sister. Thereference made to the birth of Obama’s sister Maya is made in passing,with no discussion in “Dreams” of what her birth meant to Obama or howthe birth of his sister impacted his new family, including hisrelationship with his step-father.
The Obama rebuttal “Unfit forPublication” is nit-picking by insisting that a comment made in passing constitutes “referring” to the birth of his sister. My point in theparagraph cited on page 44 is that Obama’s discussion of his time inIndonesia reflects a “personal drama” being played out against thedrama of Indonesian politics that cost his step-father to fail in thegovernment after returning to Indonesia from his U.S. education inHawaii. My point was that the birth of Obama’s sister was evidently notof enough psychological significance to Obama at the time he wrote theautobiography to merit a full discussion in the book.
No. 5
“Lie”
“Obama did not dedicate ‘Dreams from My Father’ to his mother, or tohis father, Barack Senior, or to his Indonesian stepfather. Missingfrom the dedication are the grandparents who raised him in Hawaii,especially during the years his mother abandoned him to return toIndonesia to be with Lolo.” [p. 49]
“Reality’
“Obama Did Dedicate His Book to His Family.”
Rejoinder to No. 5
To defend the point, “Unfit for Publication” cites the lastparagraph of the “Introduction,” on page xvii of “Dreams,” in whichObama “dedicates” the book to “my mother, my grandparents, my siblings,stretched across oceans and continents.”
The fact remains there is nodedication page in “Dreams.” Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, shouldrealize that a dedication buried in a book’s introduction is notequivalent to a dedication that a reader expects to be presented on aseparate dedication page at the beginning of the book.
The point I am arguing in the book is contained in the paragraphfollowing the one “Unfit for Publication” cites from page 49 of “TheObama Nation.”
On page 50, I note that “Dreams” opens not with a dedication page, but with a separate page that contains an epigraph from the Bible, 1Chronicles 29:15, in the place where a reader would expect to see thededication. I write:
“The words seem to capsulize Obama’s experience oflife as expressed in the book. ‘For we are strangers before them, andsojourners, as were all our fathers.'”
“The Obama Nation” then makesthe point that:
“Strangers in strange lands, if we adapt the title fromRobert Heinlein’s novel, is a phrase that somehow seems to sum up whatObama Junior is telling us about his life experience through histhirty-fourth year, when the autobiography was first published.”
Choosing to quibble that a comment buried in the introduction of”Dreams” constitutes a dedication, “Unfit for Publication” neglects torefute my main point, namely, that by placing this quotation from 1Chronicles on the page where a dedication page could be expected, Obamais telling us his book is about a personal alienation he somehow seemsto believe everybody experiences, such that somehow we are all”strangers” or “sojourners.”
Also neglected by “Unfit for Publication” is my next paragraph whereI point out the Christian Bible, even in the chapter of Chronicles thatObama quotes, urges us to resolve this feeling of alienation with therealization that we are all children of God. My whole point is thequestion I ask at the end of this paragraph on page 50 of “The ObamaNation:”
“If Obama is on a search for identity, then our question mustbe this: How does Obama resolve the abandonment and identity that hislife experience so poignantly causes him to feel? Is it inChristianity, as Obama solidly proclaims?”
Later in “The Obama Nation,” I present the argument that Obamaresolves his crisis of identity by reading black rage authors, not infinding Jesus Christ as a young man through his college years,something Obama does not claim to do until he reaches his thirties.
No. 6
“Lie”
“According to the blog, his religion was listed as Islam.” [page 53]
“Reality”
“Religion of the Father Was What Was Listed.”
Rejoinder to No. 6
The issue here is whether the school registration for Obama inIndonesia when he was age 6-10 reflected his religion as Islam or onlythe religion of his father.What the Obama rebuttal seems to be implying is that the registrationonly said something about Obama’s step-father, but did not establishanything about the religion of Obama himself. We cannot be sure this isthe argument “Unfit for Publication” intends to make because therebuttal fails to specify any argument. We can only infer that this isthe argument of the Obama rebuttal by reading the two newspaper quotes provided for this point in the Obama rebuttal, one from the MercuryNews and the other from the Los Angeles Times. The problem is that bothquotes cited by the Obama camp to support this point provide noevidence or argument that parents at that time in Indonesia couldregister a child for school under the religion of the father, whileholding some non-stated mental reservation that the child was not also truly of that religion.
The Associated Press has now published a photo of Obama’s Indonesianschool registration at the Cat holic Assisi School that Obama attended before he attended the public school. The photo clearly lists Obama’snationality as “Indonesian” and his religion as “Islam.” There can beno doubt that is how Obama was registered. The blog cited in “The ObamaNation,” “An American Expat in Southeast Asia,” also documents Obamawas identically registered in the public school in Indonesia.
So, the Obama rebuttal misses the point in claiming that statementsabout Obama’s school registrations are a “lie.” It is now clearly truethat the “An American Expat in Southeast Asia” blog did state correctly that Obama’s school registration in Indonesia listed him as anIndonesian citizen and a Muslim. That is not a lie. Now that we havethe Associated Press photo, we see the blog was correct in describingthe registration.The most convincing evidence Obama was living in Indonesia as a Muslim, not simply registered as Muslim because his father was Muslim, comesfrom Obama’s experience at the government-run public school at SDN 1Menteng, Jakarta.
On pages 59-60 of “The Obama Nation,” I cite a Kaltim Post interviewwith Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama’s teachers at the public school. TineHahiyary affirmed that Barry Soetoro had been registered as a Muslim and took part actively in the Islamic religious lessons during his timeat the school.
“I remember that Barry studied ‘mengaji,'” she told reporters.”Mengaji” involves recitation of the Quran. “To put it quite simply,’mengaji classes’ are not something that a non-practicing or so-calledmoderate Muslim family would ever send their child to,” wrote the “AnAmerican Expat in Southeast Asia” blog.
The record clearly shows that Obama received Islamic instruction, atleast in the public school he attended in Indonesia. Moreover, Obamareceived the more advanced type of Islamic instruction in Quran verses reserved for children believed to be Muslim in a government schoolsystem that mandated Islamic instruction at that time for all childrenattending public school in Indonesia.
No. 7
“Lie”
Zulfan “Adi (sic) said neighborhood Muslims worshiped in a nearbyhouse. When the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Adi rememberedseeing Lolo and Barry walk together to the makeshift mosque.” [page 56]
“Reality”
“Adi ‘Was Not Certain’ When Pressed About H is Recollections.”
Rejoinder to No. 7
“Unfit for Publication’ here fails to prove Adi’s statement that herecalled seeing Obama and his Indonesian stepfather attend mosquetogether was a lie.
First, “Unfit for Publication” does not dispute the accuracy of theoriginal Los Angeles Times report cited on page 56 of “The ObamaNation.” It is true and undisputed by “Unfit for Publication” that theTimes reported that Zulfan Adi, who described himself as one of Obama’sclosest childhood friends, remembered that when the muezzin sounded thecall to prayer, Lolo and Barry went to the mosque together.
All the “reality” statement claims is that Adi was “not certain” about his recollections in subsequent interviews.
Importantly, “Unfit for Publication” does not claim Zulfan Adi hasretracted the statements he made earlier to the Times, just that he now”was not certain” about his recollections.
To prove the statement in “The Obama Nation” was a lie, we have tobe presented with at least one statement from Adi directly repudiating his previous story. Even then, it would remain true that the LosAngeles Times initially reported Adi’s claims as discussed in “TheObama Nation.”
Conceivably, supporters of Obama placed pressure on Adito change his story after the Times published his first interview. Fornow, absent a repudiation of his earlier recollection on this point, webelieve Adi’s initial recall is likely correct, so much so that Adi hasyet to retract the statement he saw Obama and his step-father attendmosque together.
No. 8
“Lie”
“Obama always acknowledged his stepfather was Muslim, though he didhis best to downplay Islam as an important force in his father’s life.”[page 58]
“Reality”
“Lolo Was a Nominal Muslim.”
Rejoinder to No. 8
Again, it is difficult to discern what exact argument the Obamacampaign thought they had here that would prove my above statement frompage 58 of “The Obama Nation” was a lie.
The sentence cited from page 58 of “The Obama Nation” states thatObama downplayed the importance of Islam in the life of his father.Evidently, the Obama camp agrees, noting that “Lolo was a nominalMuslim.” Where is the lie? Both statements appear to be in substantialagreement.
Evidently, the Obama camp just wanted to count up the maximum numberof complaints they could find, charging every complaint as a “lie,”even when the Obama camp had no logical argument they could articulate for believing the statement cited from “The Obama Nation” was untrue.
“The Obama Nation” makes no argument that Lolo Soetoro, Sen. Obama’sstep-father, was a devout Muslim. Lolo Soetoro did not have to be adevout Muslim to register his son in school as a Muslim, to allow hisson to get the Islamic instruction in public school that was reservedfor students the school believed to be Muslim, or to attend mosque withhis step-son. Many people of all religions follow the conventions oftheir religion, even when their personal beliefs are less than devout.
No. 9
“Lie”
“As a vice president, Madelyn Dunham would have earned enough to be well off, even if not rich.” [page 71]
“Reality”
“The Dunhams Lived Modestly.”
Rejoinder to No. 9
In “The Obama Nation,” I noted Obama’s grandparents sold their homeand moved into a modest apartment, most likely so they could afford topay the tuition at the expensive private school, Punahou Academy, wherethe Dunhams sent Obama to attend high school. On page 72 of “The ObamaNation,” I wrote: “When his mother and sister went back to Indonesia,Obama moved back into his grandparents’ modest apartment.”
“Unfit forPublication” appears to be refuting a statement of mine taken out ofcontext. While I argued Madelyn Dunham had a good job at the Bank ofHawaii, I noted her husband, Stanley Dunham, was apparently a relativefailure at both furniture sales and life insurance sales. Obama’smother provided no demonstrated income for the family, especially aftershe left to return to Indonesia to complete her graduate thesis inanthropology. I wrote that during his high school years, Obama’sgrandmother saved what she could from her bank salary, the family’sonly substantial source of income, to pay Obama’s tuition at thisprivileged private college-preparatory school. My argument was that theDunham’s lived modestly. Where is the lie?
No. 10
“Lie”
“Still, Obama has yet to answer questions whether he ever dealtdrugs, or if he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely incollege, or where (sic) his drug usage extended into his law schooldays or beyond. Did Obama ever use drugs in his days as a communityorganizer in Chicago, or when he was a state senator from Illinois? Howabout in the U.S. Senate?” [page 77]
“Reality”
“Obama Has Made Clear Repeatedly That He Stopped Using Marijuana in College, Which Peers Have Affirmed.”
Rejoinder to No. 10
This will be changed in the next printing to read: “Obama told several reporters that he stopped taking drugs sometime during hiscollege years.”
The evidence the Obama camp offers that he quit using drugs atColumbia University, in his last two years in college, comes from hisown testimony plus the testimony of a few friends who are predisposedto believe him or from journalists who did not know Obama at the time.
Besides, what is Obama claiming to be a lie here? I merely posedquestions. There was no statement in “The Obama Nation” that claimsObama continued using drugs after college. A question is a question,not a statement of fact. Logically, only statements can be classifiedas lies, not questions.
Please also note the sloppiness with which “Unfit for Publication”copied incorrectly the quotation as published page 77 of “The ObamaNation.” Did anyone proofread “Unfit for Publication” before it wasissued?
No. 11
“Lie”
“But the key role Frank Marshall Davis plays in the autobiography isnot to provide Obama with words from his poems as a voice for Obama’sblack rage. Instead Davis is the mentor Obama seeks for wisdom andadvice, for instance when he has a crisis with his grandmother that wasso traumatic Obama still mentions it today.” [page 87]
“Reality”
“Obama Memoir Characterized Frank Marshall Davis as a Figure fromHis Youth Who ‘Fell Short’ and Whose View of Race was ‘Incurable.'”
Rejoinder to No. 11
Typically, the Obama campaign’s stated “reality” is not responsive.It is conceivable Davis was a mentor for Obama whom Obama sought forwisdom in crises, such as that experienced with his grandmother, even if Obama ultimately concluded Frank Marshall Davis “fell short” and hisview of race was “incurable.”
There is nothing contradictory about the two positions. Conceivably,Frank Marshall Davis had his greatest influence upon Obama when Obamafirst met him, with the influence of the older man diminishing overtime. Yet, Obama himself tells us he was listening to Frank MarshallDavis’s advice right up until the time he left Hawaii to attend collegein California, ultimately rejecting Davis’s argument that Obama wasgoing to college to be “trained” into a white middle class world of”corner offices” and “fancy dinners.” [Dreams, page 97]
When consulting Frank Marshall Davis after the shock over learninghis grandmother had been frightened not because a panhandler approachedher, but because the panhandler was black, Obama shares with us some ofFrank Marshall Davis’s wisdom. “She understands that black people havea reason to hate,” Obama quotes Davis as saying. “For your sake, I wishit were otherwise,” Davis tells Obama that night. “But it’s not. So youmight as well get used to it.” [Dreams, page 91]
Obama reports that the earth shook under his feet, “ready to crackat any moment.” Then, he wrote, “I stopped, trying to steady myself,and knew for the first time that I was utterly alone.”
This passage confirms the truth of the statement in “The ObamaNation.” Instead of being a lie, it is true – according to Obamahimself – that he sought Frank Marshall Davis’s counsel on the day hefirst heard the grandmother-panhandler story. Importantly, in this “reality” statement, the Obama campaign hasconceded that the identity of “Frank” in Dreams, Obama’s mentor in hishigh school years, was Frank Marshall Davis, the communist poet andjournalist from Chicago who retired in Hawaii.
No. 12
“Lie”
“Despite all they had done for him, his grandparents were still ‘white folks’ and ‘white folks’ are racists.” [page 88]
“Reality”
“Obama Said Calling His Grandparents ‘White Folks’ Wouldn’t Resonate with Him.”
Rejoinder to No. 12
The sentence from “The Obama Nation” on page 88 comes from thediscussion of Obama seeking the company of Frank Marshall Davis thenight Obama learned his grandmother had been approached by the blackpanhandler [Dreams, pages 89-91]. Davis’s whole point is that “whitefolks” like his grandmother had reason to be afraid of the blackpanhandler because “She understands that black people have a reason tohate.” What Davis was saying was that his mother rightfully held racistideas, in suspecting blacks of nefarious motives.
To support the “reality” argument, “Unfit for Publication” quotes anearlier passage in “Dreams,” one that occurs on pages 80-81 (which”Unfit for Publication” incorrectly lists as being printed on pages81-82). Here Obama writes:
“Or I would be helping Gramps dry the dishesafter dinner nd Toot would come in to say she was going to sleep, andthose same words – white folks – would flash in my head like a bright neon sign, and I would suddenly grow quiet, as if I had secrets to keep.”
This passage seems to confirm the above statement on page 88 of “TheObama Nation.” Obama grew quiet and felt he had secrets to keep becausehe saw his grandparents as “white people” with whom he could notresonate.
The quotation on page 88 of “The Obama Nation” cited here by “Unfitfor Publication” does not say it didn’t resonate with Obama to call hisgrandparents “white folks.” What didn’t resonate with Obama was thathis grandparents were white and he was forming his identity as anAfrican-American. When Obama identified his grandparents with “whitefolks,” Obama tells us a neon sign flashed in his head and he had secrets to hide. The obvious conclusion is that Obama felt “whitefolks,” including his grandparents, are racists who cannot be trusted.
In the next paragraph, on page 81 of “Dreams,” Obama tells us he hadto untangle these thoughts, struggling to conclude certain whites couldbe exempted from “the category of our distrust.” But this was notObama’s instinctive reaction to his grandparents, as expressed in theearlier paragraph, where the thought “white folks” in relation to hisgrandparents caused neon signs to flash in his head and his reactionwas that he had secrets to hide from his grandparents.
No. 13
“Lie”
“The Obama campaign denied the photo [of him in Somali clothing] proves any connection between Obama and Islam.” [page 93]
“Reality”
“Somali Outfit Had ‘No Religious Significance.'”
Rejoinder to No. 13
Again, the Obama campaign appears to be rebutting a straw manargument. “The Obama Nation” makes no claim that the Somali clothingworn by Obama during his 2006 trip to Kenya have any religioussignificance. The quotation cited from page 91 of “The Obama Nation” by”Unfit for Publication” asserts that the Obama campaign’s claim Somaliclothing proves nothing about Obama and Islam, without any attempt torefute that claim.
On page 93 of “The Obama Nation,” I explicitly note that the Somaliclothing was hardly convincing evidence that Obama is secretly Islamic.Who is the Obama campaign trying to refute? Certainly not “The ObamaNation.”
No. 14
“Lie”
“Senator Barack Obama came full circle with his father’s past byopenly supporting Raila Odinga during his visit to Africa in 2006. Hetook up his father’s battle with Kenyatta and joined forces with themost extreme Luo in Kenyan politics, Raila Odinga, the son of thecommunist Odinga Odinga, who was ousted by Kenyatta.” [page 103]
“Reality”
“Obama Was Impartial in Kenyan Politics.”
Rejoinder to No. 14
The claim in “The Obama Nation” that Obama supported Odinga comes from a Channel 2 television news segment broadcast in Chicago whileObama was in Kenya in 2006 on a “fact-finding trip” as a U.S. senator .The news segment showed Obama in Kenya making critical commentsattacking President Kibaki, Odinga’s rival in the December 2007presidential election. The Channel 2 news team interviewed on cameraKenyan government spokesman Alfred Matua, who accused Obama of meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics.
On camera, Matua said politely but pointedly that
“I think Obama hasto look at critically where he is receiving his advice from. Justbecause somebody somewhere wants to run for president, and he is usingSenator Obama as his stooge, as his puppet, to be able to get where hewants to get.” [The Obama Nation, pages 96-97]
“Unfit for Publication” neglects to address this evidence, in whichthe Kenyan government was accusing Obama of involving himself in theKenyan presidential election by his partisan support for Odinga.
Instead, “Unfit for Publication” cites a quotation from the ChicagoTribune where Obama urged President Kibaki and rival Raila Odinga tosit down to “unconditional” negotiations, after Odinga had lost theelection and his supporters had gone on a rampage killing 1,000 people, including the massacre of Christians. At this point, Obama did not need to indicate his preference for Odinga, since international expertssuchas former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice were pushing to establish that Odinga “deserved” topower-share the head-of-state with Kibaki, even though Odinga lost theelection. Arguably, Obama pressed for negotiations because he knewOdinga was likely to win through negotiations what he had lost at theballot box.Obama continued to consult with Odinga in Kenya by telephone, even inJanuary 2008, while he was campaigning in the New Hampshire primary.Today, Odinga shares the Kenyan head-of-state, having been appointedprime minister, as a solution to end the violence caused by hissupporters, with Kibaki retaining the presidency. [Not that itaddresses the falsifications in “Unfit for publication”, but ifOdinga actually lose the election rather than have it stolen from him, why did so many foreign officials urge Kibaki to share power with him?]
Nor does “Unfit for Publication” address the reports ofinternational correspondent Maina Waruru who warned in Africa News thatObama’s interference in Kenyan presidential politics on behalf ofOdinga may have undesirable consequences for both Kenya and the UnitedStates [The Obama Nation, page 106].
No. 15
“Lie”
“Senator Obama could claim to be a citizen of Kenya, as well as ofthe United States. Obama can trace his heritage back to his mother, whowas born in the United States and was an American citizen when he wasborn, and to his father, who was born in Kenya and was a Kenyan citizenwhen Obama was born.” [page 103]
“Reality”
“Obama Cannot Claim Kenyan Citizenship.”
Rejoinder to No. 15
“Unfit for Publication” argues that Obama cannot apply for dual citizenship in Kenya, under current Kenyan law.
This, however, is of the sentence quoted above frompage 103 of “The Obama Nation.” I am not arguing that Obama can orwants to be a dual citizen. My point is that Obama has an equal claim on Kenyan citizenship as hedoes on U.S. citizenship. His father was a Kenyan when he was born andhis mother was a U.S. citizen.
Similarly, on his recent trip to Germany, Obama claimed to be a”citizen of the world.” This does not mean that Obama plans to file forcitizenship in multiple countries at the same time, while alsoretaining his U.S. citizenship.
There is nothing written in “The Obama Nation” that claims Obamawants to renounce his U.S. citizenship or to apply for Kenyancitizenship.
For this reason, the “Unfit for Publication” rebuttal attacks yet another straw man argument.
By the way, Obama could claim Kenyan citizenship, provided he werewilling to renounce his U.S. citizenship. Thus, Obama could claimKenyan citizenship and the “reality” rebuttal is simply wrong.
No. 16
“Lie”
“Even as Kenya entered this postelection violence, Senator Obama hascontinued to insert himself into Kenyan Politics.” [page 104]
“Reality”
“Secretary Rice Asked Obama to Tape a Radio Address.”
Rejoinder to No. 16
Again, the “Unfit for Publication” rebuttal is non-responsive.
Senator Obama inserted himself into Kenyan politics long before Secretary Rice asked him to tape a radio address, and he continued toinsert himself in Kenyan politics even when he taped the radio address. To make the point clear, consider that Obama could have refused to tapethe radio address, explaining to Secretary Rice that he preferred toplay no role in Kenyan presidential politics, because he was thenrunning for the U.S. presidency.
Obama’s personal telephone calls to Kenya during the New Hampshireprimary were made after Kenya had entered the post-election violence.Secretary Rice did not ask Obama to make these telephone calls toKenya; instead, Sen. Obama called Odinga at this time on his owninitiative.
“Unfit for Publication” further lists the Chicago Tribune as asource for arguing that Obama called on Odinga supporters to turn awayfrom violence, insisting Odinga and Kibaki should enter “unconditionalnegotiations.”
These points actually prove the contention of “The Obama Nation”that Obama continued to intervene in Kenyan presidential politics, evenafter the post-election violence had begun. That Obama was asking forcalm or unconditional negotiations may be an argument that he was beingeven-handed at this point, but the claims are not evidence Obama wasuninvolved.
No. 17
“Lie”
“This reference establishes that Obama Senior was considered at thetime to be ‘a radical economist’ and leaves no doubt that Obama Seniorhad gravitated from his longtime family supporter Tom Mboya to the moreextreme communist position openly advocated by and identified withOdinga Odinga.” [pages 110-111]
“Reality”
“No One with ‘A Shred of Integrity’ or Intelligence Would Call Obama Sr a Communist Based on His Academic Work”
Rejoinder to No. 17
The quotation above from “The Obama Nation” on pages 110-111 does not call Obama Senior a “communist.”
So, once again, “Unfit for Publication” is rebutting a straw man argument, an argument “The Obama Nation” does not make.
The quotation from “The Obama Nation” in question relies on theauthority of University of Michigan professor of anthropology andhistory David William Cohen and Rice University professor of history E.S. Atieno Odhiambo who argued in their 2004 Ohio University Press book entitled “The Risks of Knowledge” [referenced in “The Obama Nation,”Chapter 4, footnote 31] that the economics paper Obama wrote in Kenya lined him up in support of the communist Odinga Odinga, opposing theliberal socialism of Tom Mboya. Cohen and Odhiambo call Obama Senior a”radical economist,” but they do not call him a communist.
No. 18
“Lie”
“The funding memo listed seventy-two top individuals andorganizations allegedly contributing to Odinga’s presidential campaign,including over $1 million from “Friends of Senator BO,” widelyinterpreted as friends of Senator Barack Obama …” [pages 115-116]
“Reality”
“Obama Never Contributed Money to Odinga.”
Rejoinder to No. 18
Yet again, “Unfit for Publication” rebuts a straw man argument. “TheObama Nation” does not assert that Sen. Obama has ever contributed anymoney to Raila Odinga.
Once more, “Unfit for Publication” quotes a partial sentence from”The Obama Nation.” The full sentence reads:
“The funding memo listedseventy-two top individuals and organizations allegedly contributing toOdinga’s presidential campaign, including over $1 million from “Friendsof Senator BO,”
widely interpreted as friends of Senator Barack Obama, and a second contribution of approximately $1 million fromSeif-Al-Islam Qaddafi, the son of Muammar Qaddafi, the leader of Libya.”
The next paragraph on page 116 of “The Obama Nation” makes it clearthat the document in question has not yet been proven to be authentic.
Here, on page 116 of “The Obama Nation,” I write:
“‘Friends ofSenator Barack Obama’ is insufficient proof to link any campaigncontribution from the U.S. senator or his donors to Odinga in Kenya.”
So it would appear that on this point, the “reality” rebuttal of “Unfitfor Publication” actually affirms the point made in “The Obama Nation.”
I concluded this section in “The Obama Nation” by writing on page116, as the last sentence of the chapter: “We can draw no conclusionfrom the ODM funding and strategy documents, except to list them in thecategory of ‘loose ends’ from Kenya that remain to be resolved.”
No. 19
“Lie”
“No one in Obama’s paternal or maternal family had ever resided in Chicago.” [page 123]
“Reality”
“Obama’s Great Uncle Lived in Chicago”
Rejoinder to No. 19
Obama’s great uncle in Chicago had been an obscure family member until Obama claimed in a speech he delivered on May 26, 2008, in LasCruces, New Mexico, that he had an uncle who was part of the firstAmerican troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentrationcamps.
This statement proved to be another piece of Obama hypotheticallying. In World War II, Auschwitz was liberated by the Russian Army.After considerable research by Internet blogs, researchers found the89th Infantry Division on April 4, 1945, overran Ohrdruf, a Nazi workcamp, located 40 miles southeast of the Buchenwald concentration camp. A great uncle living in Chicago who was part of the 89th InfantryDivision was subsequently found to be living in Chicago.
The Obama campaign “reality” rebuttal again misses the point I ammaking on page 123 of “The Obama Nation.” My point was that Obama wasdrawn to locate in Chicago after college because Chicago was a hotbedof the civil rights movement, dating back to Martin Luther King in the1960s. Obama himself had never lived in Chicago and his immediatefamily, i.e., his mother, father, step-father, sister or grandparents, had never lived in Chicago. Obama’s great uncle who fought in World WarII is now advanced in age and there is no indication Obama was everclose to him. Again, the Obama campaign is nit-picking, not rebuttingat all the fundamental argument “The Obama Nation” makes – that thelegacy of institutionalized South Side racism drew to Chicago a cadreof liberal community organizers, including Obama. [“The Obama Nation,”page 128]
No. 20
“Lie”
” … Obama mentions in passing that in 1984 he had just graduatedfrom college and was working as a community organizer out of the Harlemcampus of the City College of New York. This is a job that Obama doesnot mention in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.” [page 129]
“Reality”
“Obama Did Mention His Job in Dreams.”
Rejoinder to No. 20
Again, “Unfit for Publication” quotes a partial sentence from “TheObama Nation.” The complete sentence reads as follows: “In ‘TheAudacity of Hope,’ Obama mentions in passing that in 1984 he had justgraduated from college and was working as a community organizer out ofthe Harlem campus of the City College of New York. This is a job thatObama does not mention in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.”
As proof for the “reality” claim, “Unfit for Publication” quotes asentence on page 139 of “Dreams from My Father” where Obama writes:
“Ispent three months working for a Ralph Nader offshoot up in Harlem,trying to convince the minority students at City College about theimportance of recycling.”
This is another sentence Obama writes in passing, where connectingthe job for the “Ralph Nader offshoot” with the job as a communityorganizer on the Harlem campus of the City College of New York isextremely difficult, if not impossible, unless you know the insidestory, which Obama is not sharing in any detail.
Obama has yet to publish, not even on his campaign website, acomplete listing of all jobs he has taken, the exact dates he wasemployed, the positions he held and the compensation he received.
This “lie” is another example of the proclivity of “Unfit forPublication” to nit-pick “The Obama Nation,” evidently in order to runup the number of so-called “lies,” regardless whether the point beingdisputed by “Unfit for Publication” has any real importance at all.
My point in “The Obama Nation” was that Obama held a job as acommunity organizer prior to being recruited by Jerry Kellman to headthe Alinsky organization’s Developing Communities Project in Chicago. “Unfit for Publication” never disputes my main argument here, namely,that Obama already had a history as a community organizer. I argueKellman did not find Obama simply by reading a job application Obamasent to him out of the blue, but Kellman was attracted to Obama becausehe had already started working in community organizing before he movedto Chicago to become a full-time professional community organizer inthe Alinsky organization. On this point, “Unfit for Publication” issilent.
No. 21
“Lie”
“In the 1980s, Kellman was a known figure in community organizationand it is doubtful he would have driven from Chicago to New York justto meet a newly graduated college kid who wrote a letter looking for ajob. More likely, Kellman went to New York to see if the reports comingout of New York City about Obama were right, that Obama’s profile mightjust fit in with Kellman’s organization.” [page 130]
“Reality”
“Kellman was in New York Visiting Family and Set Up an Interview with Obama.”
Rejoinder to No. 21
Again, the Obama campaign’s “reality” argument is non-responsive.