“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 for Publication.” 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 to You by: Bush/Cheney Attack Machine.”
The mocking tenor of the cover characterizes the Obama rebuttal not as a piece of serious scholarly or legal analysis of “The Obama Nation,” 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 mean by a “Bush/Cheney smear machine” in the first place, since the term is asserted 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 Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada (Los Angeles, CA, WND Books, Published by World Ahead Media, 2007)) involved a sharp criticism of the Bush/Cheney Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP. That book argued the Bush administration was leading the U.S. on a similar path to that taken in Europe over the now more than 50 years since 1957, where trade agreements led to the formation 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 might have a censorship department in which a book critical of a President Obama might be banned from publication?
Then, the bottom bar on the cover 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 be proved by the body of the document.
In other words, the point of writing a legitimate rebuttal would be to prove that I have lied in writing “The Obama Nation,” not simply to assert so. As we shall see, asserting as true that what is not yet proved is only one of the many glaring logical errors made in the Obama rebuttal.
“Unfit for Publication” is so defective on logic, argumentation and evidence we wonder if the Obama campaign ever reviewed the piece before the 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 this bar on the mock-cover’s upper right corner only emphasizes that “Unfit for Publication” is a political attack piece aimed at a book the Obama campaign would prefer no one would read.
First Page of “Unfit for Publication”
The first page of “Unfit for Publication” is titled “Setting the Record Straight on the Lies in Jerome Corsi’s ‘The Obama Nation.'”
Again, we repeat the logical error here is to assert with out 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 derogatory statement that is asserted without proof. Launching such abuse on critics would be beneath the dignity of most presidential political campaigns 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 the presidential campaign of Raila Odinga, but “The Obama Nation” noted the authenticity of that document is still in question.
The first page asserts “Obama has no secret plan to destroy the military.” Again, “The Obama Nation” made no such claim. “The Obama Nation” claimed instead that an Obama presidency would leave the United States a militarily weakened nation.
Following a heading in bold print entitled, “The author: a discredited, fringe bigot,” the Obama rebuttal mocks as a “conspiratorial view” that “He [Corsi] believes that President Bush is trying to merge the United states (sic) with Mexico and Canada.” As I documented in my last book, “The Late Great USA,” the SPP created 20 bureaucratic trilateral working groups dedicated to “integrating and harmonizing” a wide range of U.S. administrative laws and regulations with Mexico and Canada. Does the Obama campaign deny the existence of the SPP working groups as documented on the government’s own website at www.spp.gov?
The Obama campaign would also be well advised to consult Christopher Booker and Richard North’s 2003 book entitled “The Great Deception,” (Christopher Booker and Richard North, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (London and New York, Continuum, 2003) in which they argue an elite in Europe executed an agenda never fully disclosed to the European people, with the aim of creating an European Union out of a series of economic agreements beginning with the coal and steel agreement reached in 1957. The argument of North American integration has historical precedent in Europe and is not an argument that rational thinkers can dismiss without debate.
Next, the Obama rebuttal asserts, “He [Corsi] believes that there is a literally unending supply of oil beneath the ground.” This is not a necessary corollary of the abiotic theory of the origin of oil which I argue in my book co-authored with Craig Smith, entitled “Black Gold Stranglehold.” (Jerome R. Corsi and Craig R. Smith, Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil (Nashville: WND Books, an Imprint of Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2005) As we demonstrated in this book, the Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic oil has predominated in the Russia and the Ukraine since the end of World War II. Russia is now the world’s second largest producer of oil, despite U.S. geologists driven by the organic theory of the origin of oil telling the Soviet Union at the end of WWII that the country’s potential for finding oil was minimal. The book predicted correctly oil would hit $100 a barrel and that new deep-earth finds of oil would be made, such as the discoveries recently made in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean off Brazil. Even if oil is made on a continuing basis by chemical processes occurring in the mantle of the earth, that alone would not necessarily imply the supply of oil is “unending.”
Then, the Obama rebuttal claims, “And in perhaps the gravest sign that his views can’t be trusted, he [Corsi] alleges a government cover-up of the 9/11 attacks and denies that airplanes were to blame for the towers’ collapse.” The Obama campaign can find nothing I have ever published to substantiate those claims. I did publish, however, an article in WorldNetDaily on Feb. 29, 2008, that examined a test conducted 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: Video shows jet vaporizing,” WorldNetDaily, Feb. 29, 2008.) The test was conducted to demonstrate whether a proposed Japanese nuclear power plant could withstand the impact of a heavy airliner. As I noted in the article, the video of the F-4 being pulverized on impact with a hardened target provides evidence to answer 9/11 skeptics who question why so little identifiable airplane debris remained after the hijacked American Airlines Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.
Let me state categorically here that I continue to support the conclusions 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. government was involved or complicit in causing the 9/11 attacks.
Next, the front page references comments I wrote anonymously on FreeRepublic.com. I have repeatedly apologized for these comments and stated the comments did not reflect my true beliefs then or now. Yet, the Obama rebuttal reports these comments as if the campaign found them for the first time in 2008, neglecting the extensive vetting of the comments that has occurred since they were first discovered in 2004.
As noted before, “Unfit for Publication” is an attack piece that makes no claim of fairness or even accuracy in asserting their one-sided presentation of half truths.
Finally, even if the arguments of “The Late Great USA” and “Black Gold Stranglehold” were false, that alone 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 I have written on totally unrelated topics. Nor are the “lies” proven by reference to my unrelated and now disavowed comments on FreeRepublic.com. Proving “lies” in “The Obama Nation” demands proving the 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 a series of quotations from various newspapers, magazines and political websites which are critical of “The Obama Nation.”
The section begins with the claim that “Corsi’s falsehoods about Barack Obama have been discredited by numerous news organizations, which have questioned his ‘scholarship,’ his conclusions, and his ideological bias.”
Again, a counting of critical reviews does not prove “The Obama Nation” contains lies. Logically, the critics could all be wrong, or themselves politically motivated.
If truth were determined by voting, those challenging conventional beliefs would never be vindicated and the Christopher Columbus and Galileo figures of history would be mere footnotes to folly.
Simply put, the standard of truth is never reducible to opinion, no matter how many newspapers, magazines and political websites the Obama campaign chooses to cite in falsely concluding the views expressed by critics establishes anything, except for their opinion itself.
We should also note the vitriol of many of the opinions selected by the Obama campaign for inclusion in their rebuttal. The intensity of the animosity for “The Obama Nation” expressed by these selected comments suggests “Unfit for Publication” itself is a hate piece, committing the same errors the Obama campaign accuses were the fault in my 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 have 700 footnotes …” “The Obama Nation” does have 681 footnotes, nearly 700 given number rounding. This is not a claim, it is a fact.
Let’s go through alleged the “factual inaccuracies” one by one. The page references in the “Lie” sections of the Obama rebuttal refer to pages in “The Obama Nation.”
“Nowhere in the autobiography does Obama disclose that his wife-to-be accompanied him to Africa on the 1992 trip.” [p. 25]
“Obama Wrote about Taking Michelle to Kenya.”
Rejoinder to No. 1
As proof of this “lie,” the Obama campaign references page 439 of Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father,” citing a paragraph in which Obama mentions taking Michelle to Kenya “after our engagement.”
Page 439 comes from the “Epilogue” to “Dreams,” on the fourth last page 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 major section 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 telephone interview with Sayid Obama, the senator’s uncle, in Kenya. Sayid Obama made the point that Obama has been in Africa three times – in 1986, then in 1992, when he was collecting material for “Dreams,” and in 2006, 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 of experiences from both trips, without any way of knowing which related experiences came when.” The Obama rebuttal does not dispute this argument.
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. These claims are made on pages 13-14 of “The Obama Nation” and are not disputed by the Obama rebuttal.
My main point in this section, also not disputed by the Obama rebuttal, comes in my discussion of my interview with Daily Mail reporter Rob Crilly, who told me, “We would be surprised to discover that Obama allows elements of the truth to surface in the text, at the end of the book, in the third-section discussion of Obama’s trip to Kenya. Even then we get the truth obliquely, in a manner that still requires some considerable effort to decipher.” None of this is disputed in the Obama rebuttal.
An “Epilogue” is an addendum after the book is finished. Obama does not devote a section in the body of the text to discussing that Michelle went with him to Africa in 1992. Obama does not explicitly discuss or distinguish the 1992 visit to Africa in the body of the text. How much of the third section of “Dreams” is a blend of Obama’s 1986 and 1992 experiences in Kenya? We simply do not know. The book is not meant to be a chronological account of Obama’s life and he is silent on these important distinctions.
“Obama failed to discuss his father’s alcoholism and polygamy in his autobiography.” [p. 24] “Obama’s story of his father’s life is dense, presented in anything but a straightforward manner, often glorified or embellished so as to mask much of the harsh and, for Obama, probably painful truth.” [p. 37]
“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 the original sentence in “The Obama Nation.” The original sentence from page 24 of “The Obama Nation” discusses my telephone interview with Daily Mail reporter Rob Crilly and reads in full: “I asked [Crilly] why Obama failed to discuss his father’s alcoholism and polygamy in his autobiography.” Note that at this point in my narrative I am not asserting as final that Obama failed to discuss his father’s alcoholism and polygamy in his autobiography, I am only asking Crilly if that is true.
Crilly corrects me. Please read the next sentence in “The Obama Nation:” “Crilly insisted Obama had discussed the truth, but he argued Obama made the truth difficult to discern in the book, especially since Obama first presents a highly sympathetic portrait of his father.”
I accepted Crilly’s explanation, as should be apparent to any fair reader of “The Obama Nation.” The remainder of the paragraph in question reads: “When we first read the book, Crilly argued, Obama encourages us to see his father as a noble but poor African who emerges ultimately to get a degree at Harvard, one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Obama leads us to believe his father abandoned his mother and him only because economic restraints left his father no other choice. The problem, Crilly said, was that the truth, or what Obama chooses to reveal of the truth, comes only much later in the book, and then only in pieces.”
Clearly, I accept in “The Obama Nation” that Obama does disclose his father was a polygamist and an habitual alcoholic who killed himself in the last of a series of drunk driving incidents in Nairobi.
A close look at the quotations the Obama rebuttal uses here makes my exact point. All the citations from “Dreams” used here come from later in the book and jump around. The first quotation from “Dreams” cited by “Unfit for Publication” comes from pages 216-217 of “Dreams,” followed by a quotation from page 200, then page 316 and 335, followed by a quotation from page 126, then quotations from page 213 and page 423, ending with a quotation from pages 265-266 of “Dreams,” evidently also affirmed on page 218.
All these quotes cited in the Obama rebuttal come from the second half of “Dreams” and demand the reader jump around in the book to get the 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 substantive arguments made in “The Obama Nation” regarding Obama’s father: namely that 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 supposedly last child with an unnamed woman.
Nor does “Unfit for Publication” refute the claim made by “The Obama Nation” on pages 26-27 that Sayid Obama, the senator’s uncle, was unsure how many wives his brother, Obama Senior, had or how many half-brothers and half-sisters Obama has – maybe six, maybe more.
“We find there is even uncertainty whether Stanley Ann and Obama Senior were ever married in a church. No marriage license for this first marriage surfaces in any of the now-growing volume of research being done … Yet even this remains murky.” [p. 44]
“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 Obama Nation” cited on page 44 is that there is no evidence that Obama’s father and mother were married in a church. I am not arguing that Obama’s parents did not have a “legal American marriage.” Obviously, a marriage does not have to be in a church to be a “legal American marriage” and I am not disputing that point in my book.
In other words, the “reality” argument in “Unfit for Publication” is non-responsive in that two people can have a legal American marriage, even if the marriage does not occur in a church. A non-church marriage can be legal if the couple gets a marriage license issued by a civil authority and presents themselves for matrimony before any number of officials 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 entire paragraph cited on page 44 of “The Obama Nation,” they would have found the following: “No marriage license for this marriage surfaces in the now-growing volume of research being done, much of it for the first time, on Obama’s life. In discussing Stanley Ann and Obama Senior’s marriage, Obama comments, ‘In fact, how and when the marriage occurred remains a bit murky, a bill of particulars that I’ve never had the courage to explore. There’s no record of a real wedding, a cake, a giving away of the bride.’ Obama then suggests there was a small civil ceremony with a justice of the peace. Others say divorce papers confirm that a civil ceremony was held on Maui, on February 2, 1961, when Ann was three months pregnant with Obama.”
The Obama rebuttal refutes a “straw man” argument here, an argument I 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” on this point. I argued Obama’s parents had a civil ceremony marriage and that is all that is required for the marriage to be a “legal American marriage.”
“Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to his time in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes no reference to Maya’s birth.” [p. 48]
“Obama Did Make Reference to His Sister’s Birth.”
Rejoinder to No. 4
The Obama rebuttal that the statement on page 48 of “The Obama Nation” 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 of Maya, through the separation and ultimate divorce of his step-father and mother, up until the last time he saw Lolo, ten years later, when his 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 of Obama’s autobiography “Dreams,” the chapter in the autobiography devoted to discussing Obama’s experience in Indonesia, focuses primarily on him, neglecting to devote a discussion to his sister. The reference 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 how the birth of his sister impacted his new family, including his relationship with his step-father.
The Obama rebuttal “Unfit for Publication” is nit-picking by insisting that a comment made in passing constitutes “referring” to the birth of his sister. My point in the paragraph cited on page 44 is that Obama’s discussion of his time in Indonesia reflects a “personal drama” being played out against the drama of Indonesian politics that cost his step-father to fail in the government after returning to Indonesia from his U.S. education in Hawaii.
My point was that the birth of Obama’s sister was evidently not of enough psychological significance to Obama at the time he wrote the autobiography to merit a full discussion in the book.
“Obama did not dedicate ‘Dreams from My Father’ to his mother, or to his father, Barack Senior, or to his Indonesian stepfather. Missing from the dedication are the grandparents who raised him in Hawaii, especially during the years his mother abandoned him to return to Indonesia to be with Lolo.” [p. 49]
“Obama Did Dedicate His Book to His Family.”
Rejoinder to No. 5
To defend the point, “Unfit for Publication” cites the last paragraph of the “Introduction,” on page xvii of “Dreams,” in which Obama “dedicates” the book to “my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents.” The fact remains there is no dedication page in “Dreams.” Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, should realize that a dedication buried in a book’s introduction is not equivalent to a dedication that a reader expects to be presented on a separate dedication page at the beginning of the book.
The point I am arguing in the book is contained in the paragraph following the one “Unfit for Publication” cites from page 49 of “The Obama 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, 1 Chronicles 29:15, in the place where a reader would expect to see the dedication. I write: “The words seem to capsulize Obama’s experience of life as expressed in the book. ‘For we are strangers before them, and sojourners, as were all our fathers.'” “The Obama Nation” then makes the point that: “Strangers in strange lands, if we adapt the title from Robert Heinlein’s novel, is a phrase that somehow seems to sum up what Obama Junior is telling us about his life experience through his thirty-forth 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 to refute my main point, namely, that by placing this quotation from 1 Chronicles on the page where a dedication page could be expected, Obama is telling us his book is about a personal alienation he somehow seems to believe everybody experiences, such that somehow we are all “strangers” or “sojourners.”
Also neglected by “Unfit for Publication” is my next paragraph where I point out the Christian Bible, even in the chapter of Chronicles that Obama quotes, urges us to resolve this feeling of alienation with the realization that we are all children of God. My whole point is the question I ask at the end of this paragraph on page 50 of “The Obama Nation:” “If Obama is on a search for identity, then our question must be this: How does Obama resolve the abandonment and identity that his life experience so poignantly causes him to feel? Is it in Christianity, as Obama solidly proclaims?”
Later in “The Obama Nation,” I present the argument that Obama resolves his crisis of identity by reading black rage authors, not in finding Jesus Christ as a young man through his college years, something Obama does not claim to do until he reaches his thirties.
“According to the blog, his religion was listed as Islam.” [page 53]
“Religion of the Father Was What Was Listed.”
Rejoinder to No. 6
The issue here is whether the school registration for Obama in Indonesia when he was age 6-10 reflected his religion as Islam or only the religion of his father.
What the Obama rebuttal seems to be implying is that the registration only said something about Obama’s step-father, but did not establish anything about the religion of Obama himself. We cannot be sure this is the argument “Unfit for Publication” intends to make because the rebuttal fails to specify any argument. We can only infer that this is the argument of the Obama rebuttal by reading the two newspaper quotes provided for this point in the Obama rebuttal, one from the Mercury News and the other from the Los Angeles Times. The problem is that both quotes cited by the Obama camp to support this point provide no evidence or argument that parents at that time in Indonesia could register a child for school under the religion of the father, while holding 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 Indonesian school registration at the Catholic Assisi School that Obama attended before he attended the public school. The photo clearly lists Obama’s nationality as “Indonesian” and his religion as “Islam.” There can be no doubt that is how Obama was registered. The blog cited in “The Obama Nation,” “An American Expat in Southeast Asia,” also documents Obama was identically registered in the public school in Indonesia.
So, the Obama rebuttal misses the point in claiming that statements about Obama’s school registrations are a “lie.” It is now clearly true that the “An American Expat in Southeast Asia” blog did state correctly that Obama’s school registration in Indonesia listed him as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. That is not a lie. Now that we have the Associated Press photo, we see the blog was correct in describing the registration.
The most convincing evidence Obama was living in Indonesia as a Muslim, not simply registered as Muslim because his father was Muslim, comes from Obama’’ experience at the government-run public school at SDN 1 Menteng, Jakarta.
On pages 59-60 of “The Obama Nation,” I cite a Kaltim Post interview with Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama’s teachers at the public school. Tine Hahiyary affirmed that Barry Soetoro had been registered as a Muslim and took part actively in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at 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-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to,” wrote the “An American Expat in Southeast Asia” blog.
The record clearly shows that Obama received Islamic instruction, at least in the public school he attended in Indonesia. Moreover, Obama received the more advanced type of Islamic instruction in Quran verses reserved for children believed to be Muslim in a government school system that mandated Islamic instruction at that time for all children attending public school in Indonesia.
Zulfan “Adi (sic) said neighborhood Muslims worshiped in a nearby house. When the muezzin sounded the call to prayer, Adi remembered seeing Lolo and Barry walk together to the makeshift mosque.” [page 56]
“Adi ‘Was Not Certain’ When Pressed About His Recollections.”
Rejoinder to No. 7
“Unfit for Publication’ here fails to prove Adi’s statement that he recalled seeing Obama and his Indonesian stepfather attend mosque together was a lie.
First, “Unfit for Publication” does not dispute the accuracy of the original Los Angeles Times report cited on page 56 of “The Obama Nation.” It is true and undisputed by “Unfit for Publication” that the Times reported that Zulfan Adi, who described himself as one of Obama’s closest childhood friends, remembered that when the muezzin sounded the call 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 has retracted 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 to be presented with at least one statement from Adi directly repudiating his previous story.
Even then, it would remain true that the Los Angeles Times initially reported Adi’s claims as discussed in “The Obama Nation.” Conceivably, supporters of Obama placed pressure on Adi to change his story after the Times published his first interview.
For now, absent a repudiation of his earlier recollection on this point, we believe Adi’s initial recall is likely correct, so much so that Adi has yet to retract the statement he saw Obama and his step-father attend mosque together.
“Obama always acknowledged his stepfather was Muslim, though he did his best to downplay Islam as an important force in his father’s life.” [page 58]
“Lolo Was a Nominal Muslim.”
Rejoinder to No. 8
Again, it is difficult to discern what exact argument the Obama campaign thought they had here that would prove my above statement from page 58 of “The Obama Nation” was a lie.
The sentence cited from page 58 of “The Obama Nation” states that Obama downplayed the importance of Islam in the life of his father. Evidently, the Obama camp agrees, noting that “Lolo was a nominal Muslim.” Where is the lie? Both statements appear to be in substantial agreement.
Evidently, the Obama camp just wanted to count up the maximum number of 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’s step-father, was a devout Muslim. Lolo Soetoro did not have to be a devout Muslim to register his son in school as a Muslim, to allow his son to get the Islamic instruction in public school that was reserved for students the school believed to be Muslim, or to attend mosque with his step-son. Many people of all religions follow the conventions of their religion, even when their personal beliefs are less than devout.
“As a vice president, Madelyn Dunham would have earned enough to be well off, even if not rich.” [page 71]
“The Dunhams Lived Modestly.”
Rejoinder to No. 9
In “The Obama Nation,” I noted Obama’s grandparents sold their home and moved into a modest apartment, most likely so they could afford to pay the tuition at the expensive private school, Punahou Academy, where the Dunhams sent Obama to attend high school. On page 72 of “The Obama Nation,” I wrote: “When his mother and sister went back to Indonesia, Obama moved back into his grandparents’ modest apartment.”
“Unfit for Publication” appears to be refuting a statement of mine taken out of context. While I argued Madelyn Dunham had a good job at the Bank of Hawaii, I noted her husband, Stanley Dunham, was apparently a relative failure at both furniture sales and life insurance sales. Obama’s mother provided no demonstrated income for the family, especially after she left to return to Indonesia to complete her graduate thesis in anthropology. I wrote that during his high school years, Obama’s grandmother saved what she could from her bank salary, the family’s only substantial source of income, to pay Obama’s tuition at this privileged private college-preparatory school. My argument was that the Dunham’s lived modestly. Where is the lie?
“Still, Obama has yet to answer questions whether he ever dealt drugs, or if he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or where (sic) his drug usage extended into his law school days or beyond. Did Obama ever use drugs in his days as a community organizer in Chicago, or when he was a state senator from Illinois? How about in the U.S. Senate?” [page 77]
“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 his college years.”
The evidence the Obama camp offers that he quit using drugs at Columbia University, in his last two years in college, comes from his own testimony plus the testimony of a few friends who are predisposed to 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 posed questions. There was no statement in “The Obama Nation” that claims Obama continued using drugs after college. A question is a question, not a statement of fact. Logically, only statements can be classified as lies, not questions.
Please also note the sloppiness with which “Unfit for Publication” copied incorrectly the quotation as published page 77 of “The Obama Nation.” Did anyone proofread “Unfit for Publication” before it was issued?
“But the key role Frank Marshall Davis plays in the autobiography is not to provide Obama with words from his poems as a voice for Obama’s black rage. Instead Davis is the mentor Obama seeks for wisdom and advice, for instance when he has a crisis with his grandmother that was so traumatic Obama still mentions it today.” [page 87]
“Obama Memoir Characterized Frank Marshall Davis as a Figure from His 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 for wisdom in crises, such as that experienced with his grandmother, even if Obama ultimately concluded Frank Marshall Davis “fell short” and his view of race was “incurable.”
There is nothing contradictory about the two positions. Conceivably, Frank Marshall Davis had his greatest influence upon Obama when Obama first met him, with the influence of the older man diminishing over time. Yet, Obama himself tells us he was listening to Frank Marshall Davis’ advice right up until the time he left Hawaii to attend college in California, ultimately rejecting Davis’ argument that Obama was going 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 learning his grandmother had been frightened not because a panhandler approached her, but because the panhandler was black, Obama shares with us some of Frank Marshall Davis’ wisdom. “She understands that black people have a reason to hate,” Obama quotes Davis as saying. “For your sake, I wish it were otherwise,” Davis tells Obama that night. “But it’s not. So you might as well get used to it.” [Dreams, page 91]
Obama reports that the earth shook under his feet, “ready to crack at 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 Obama Nation.” Instead of being a lie, it is true – according to Obama himself – that he sought Frank Marshall Davis’ counsel on the day he first heard the grandmother-panhandler story.
Importantly, in this “reality” statement, the Obama campaign has conceded that the identity of “Frank” in Dreams, Obama’s mentor in his high school years, was Frank Marshall Davis, the communist poet and journalist from Chicago who retired in Hawaii.
“Despite all they had done for him, his grandparents were still ‘white folks’ and ‘white folks’ are racists.” [page 88]
“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 the discussion of Obama seeking the company of Frank Marshall Davis the night Obama learned his grandmother had been approached by the black panhandler [Dreams, pages 89-91]. Davis’ whole point is that “white folks” like his grandmother had reason to be afraid of the black panhandler because “She understands that black people have a reason to hate.” What Davis was saying was that his mother rightfully held racist ideas, in suspecting blacks of nefarious motives.
To support the “reality” argument, “Unfit for Publication” quotes an earlier passage in “Dreams,” one that occurs on pages 80-81 (which “Unfit for Publication” incorrectly lists as being printed on pages 81-82). Here Obama writes: “Or I would be helping Gramps dry the dishes after dinner and Toot would come in to say she was going to sleep, and those 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 “The Obama Nation.” Obama grew quiet and felt he had secrets to keep because he saw his grandparents as “white people” with whom he could not resonate.
The quotation on page 88 of “The Obama Nation” cited here by “Unfit for Publication” does not say it didn’t resonate with Obama to call his grandparents “white folks.” What didn’t resonate with Obama was that his grandparents were white and he was forming his identity as an African-American. When Obama identified his grandparents with “white folks,” Obama tells us a neon sign flashed in his head and he had secrets to hide. The obvious conclusion is that Obama felt “white folks,” including his grandparents, are racists who cannot be trusted.
In the next paragraph, on page 81 of “Dreams,” Obama tells us he had to untangle these thoughts, struggling to conclude certain whites could be exempted from “the category of our distrust.” But this was not Obama’s instinctive reaction to his grandparents, as expressed in the earlier paragraph, where the thought “white folks” in relation to his grandparents caused neon signs to flash in his head and his reaction was that he had secrets to hide from his grandparents.
“The Obama campaign denied the photo [of him in Somali clothing] proves any connection between Obama and Islam.” [page 93]
“Somali Outfit Had ‘No Religious Significance.'”
Rejoinder to No. 13
Again, the Obama campaign appears to be rebutting a straw man argument.
“The Obama Nation” makes no claim that the Somali clothing worn by Obama during his 2006 trip to Kenya have any religious significance. The quotation cited from page 91 of “The Obama Nation” by “Unfit for Publication” asserts that the Obama campaign’s claim Somali clothing proves nothing about Obama and Islam, without any attempt to refute that claim.
On page 93 of “The Obama Nation,” I explicitly note that the Somali clothing was hardly convincing evidence that Obama is secretly Islamic. Who is the Obama campaign trying to refute? Certainly not “The Obama Nation.”
“Senator Barack Obama came full circle with his father’s past by openly supporting Raila Odinga during his visit to Africa in 2006. He took up his father’s battle with Kenyatta and joined forces with the most extreme Luo in Kenyan politics, Raila Odinga, the son of the communist Odinga Odinga, who was ousted by Kenyatta.” [page 103]
“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 while Obama was in Kenya in 2006 on a “fact-finding trip” as a U.S. senator. The news segment showed Obama in Kenya making critical comments attacking President Kibaki, Odinga’s rival in the December 2007 presidential election. The Channel 2 news team interviewed on camera Kenyan government spokesman Alfred Matua, who accused Obama of meddling inappropriately in Kenyan politics.
On camera, Matua said politely but pointedly that “I think Obama has to look at critically where he is receiving his advice from. Just because somebody somewhere wants to run for president, and he is using Senator Obama as his stooge, as his puppet, to be able to get where he wants to get.” [The Obama Nation, pages 96-97]
“Unfit for Publication” neglects to address this evidence, in which the Kenyan government was accusing Obama of involving himself in the Kenyan presidential election by his partisan support for Odinga.
Instead, “Unfit for Publication” cites a quotation from the Chicago Tribune where Obama urged President Kibaki and rival Raila Odinga to sit down to “unconditional” negotiations, after Odinga had lost the election 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 experts such as former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were pushing to establish that Odinga “deserved” to power-share the head-of-state with Kibaki, even though Odinga lost the election. Arguably, Obama pressed for negotiations because he knew Odinga was likely to win through negotiations what he had lost at the ballot box.
Obama continued to consult with Odinga in Kenya by telephone, even in January 2008, while he was campaigning in the New Hampshire primary. Today, Odinga shares the Kenyan head-of-state, having been appointed prime minister, as a solution to end the violence caused by his supporters, with Kibaki retaining the presidency.
Nor does “Unfit for Publication” address the reports of international correspondent Maina Waruru who warned in Africa News that Obama’s interference in Kenyan presidential politics on behalf of Odinga may have undesirable consequences for both Kenya and the United States [The Obama Nation, page 106].
“Senator Obama could claim to be a citizen of Kenya, as well as of the United States. Obama can trace his heritage back to his mother, who was born in the United States and was an American citizen when he was born, and to his father, who was born in Kenya and was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born.” [page 103]
“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 not the argument of the sentence quoted above from page 103 of “The Obama Nation.” I am not arguing that Obama can or wants to be a dual citizen.
My point is that Obama has an equal claim on Kenyan citizenship as he does on U.S. citizenship. His father was a Kenyan when he was born and his 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 for citizenship in multiple countries at the same time, while also retaining his U.S. citizenship.
There is nothing written in “The Obama Nation” that claims Obama wants to renounce his U.S. citizenship or to apply for Kenyan citizenship.
For this reason, the “Unfit for Publication” rebuttal attacks yet another straw man argument.
By the way, Obama could claim Kenyan citizenship, provided he were willing to renounce his U.S. citizenship. Thus, Obama could claim Kenyan citizenship and the “reality” rebuttal is simply wrong.
“Even as Kenya entered this postelection violence, Senator Obama has continued to insert himself into Kenyan Politics.” [page 104]
“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 to insert himself in Kenyan politics even when he taped the radio address. To make the point clear, consider that Obama could have refused to tape the radio address, explaining to Secretary Rice that he preferred to play no role in Kenyan presidential politics, because he was then running for the U.S. presidency.
Obama’s personal telephone calls to Kenya during the New Hampshire primary were made after Kenya had entered the post-election violence. Secretary Rice did not ask Obama to make these telephone calls to Kenya; instead, Sen. Obama called Odinga at this time on his own initiative.
“Unfit for Publication” further lists the Chicago Tribune as a source for arguing that Obama called on Odinga supporters to turn away from violence, insisting Odinga and Kibaki should enter “unconditional negotiations.”
These points actually prove the contention of “The Obama Nation” that Obama continued to intervene in Kenyan presidential politics, even after the post-election violence had begun. That Obama was asking for calm or unconditional negotiations may be an argument that he was being even-handed at this point, but the claims are not evidence Obama was uninvolved.
“This reference establishes that Obama Senior was considered at the time to be ‘a radical economist’ and leaves no doubt that Obama Senior had gravitated from his longtime family supporter Tom Mboya to the more extreme communist position openly advocated by and identified with Odinga Odinga.” [pages 110-111]
“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 the authority of University of Michigan professor of anthropology and history 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 the liberal socialism of Tom Mboya. Cohen and Odhiambo call Obama Senior a “radical economist,” but they do not call him a communist.
“The funding memo listed seventy-two top individuals and organizations allegedly contributing to Odinga’s presidential campaign, including over $1 million from “Friends of Senator BO,” widely interpreted as friends of Senator Barack Obama …” [pages 115-116]
“Obama Never Contributed Money to Odinga.”
Rejoinder to No. 18
Yet again, “Unfit for Publication” rebuts a straw man argument. “The Obama Nation” does not assert that Sen. Obama has ever contributed any money to Raila Odinga.
Once more, “Unfit for Publication” quotes a partial sentence from “The Obama Nation.” The full sentence reads: “The funding memo listed seventy-two top individuals and organizations allegedly contributing to Odinga’s presidential campaign, including over $1 million from “Friends of Senator BO,” widely interpreted as friends of Senator Barack Obama, and a second contribution of approximately $1 million from Saif al-Islam Gadhafi, the son of Muammar Gadhafi, the leader of Libya.”
The next paragraph on page 116 of “The Obama Nation” makes it clear that the document in question has not yet been proven to be authentic.
Here, on page 116 of “The Obama Nation,” I write: “‘Friends of Senator Barack Obama’ is insufficient proof to link any campaign contribution from the U.S. senator or his donors to Odinga in Kenya.” So it would appear that on this point, the “reality” rebuttal of “Unfit for Publication” actually affirms the point made in “The Obama Nation.”
I concluded this section in “The Obama Nation” by writing on page 116, as the last sentence of the chapter: “We can draw no conclusion from the ODM funding and strategy documents, except to list them in the category of ‘loose ends’ from Kenya that remain to be resolved.”
“No one in Obama’s paternal or maternal family had ever resided in Chicago.” [page 123]
“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 Las Cruces, New Mexico, that he had an uncle who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps.
This statement proved to be another piece of Obama hypothetical lying. In World War II, Auschwitz was liberated by the Russian Army. After considerable research by Internet blogs, researchers found the 89th Infantry Division on April 4, 1945, overran Ohrdruf, a Nazi work camp, located 40 miles southeast of the Buchenwald concentration camp. A great uncle living in Chicago who was part of the 89th Infantry Division was subsequently found to be living in Chicago.
The Obama campaign “reality” rebuttal again misses the point I am making on page 123 of “The Obama Nation.” My point was that Obama was drawn to locate in Chicago after college because Chicago was a hotbed of the civil rights movement, dating back to Martin Luther King in the 1960s. Obama himself had never lived in Chicago and his immediate family, i.e., his mother, father, step-father, sister or grandparents, had never lived in Chicago. Obama’s great uncle who fought in World War II is now advanced in age and there is no indication Obama was ever close to him. Again, the Obama campaign is nit-picking, not rebutting at all the fundamental argument “The Obama Nation” makes – that the legacy of institutionalized South Side racism drew to Chicago a cadre of liberal community organizers, including Obama. [“The Obama Nation,” page 128]
” … Obama mentions in passing that in 1984 he had just graduated from college and was working as a community organizer out of the Harlem campus of the City College of New York. This is a job that Obama does not mention in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.” [page 129]
“Obama Did Mention His Job in Dreams.”
Rejoinder to No. 20
Again, “Unfit for Publication” quotes a partial sentence from “The Obama Nation.”
The complete sentence reads as follows: “In ‘The Audacity of Hope,’ Obama mentions in passing that in 1984 he had just graduated from college and was working as a community organizer out of the Harlem campus of the City College of New York. This is a job that Obama does not mention in his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.”
As proof for the “reality” claim, “Unfit for Publication” quotes a sentence on page 139 of “Dreams from My Father” where Obama writes: “I spent three months working for a Ralph Nader offshoot up in Harlem, trying to convince the minority students at City College about the importance of recycling.”
This is another sentence Obama writes in passing, where connecting the job for the “Ralph Nader offshoot” with the job as a community organizer on the Harlem campus of the City College of New York is extremely difficult, if not impossible, unless you know the inside story, which Obama is not sharing in any detail.
Obama has yet to publish, not even on his campaign website, a complete listing of all jobs he has taken, the exact dates he was employed, the positions he held and the compensation he received.
This “lie” is another example of the proclivity of “Unfit for Publication” to nit-pick “The Obama Nation,” evidently in order to run up the number of so-called “lies,” regardless whether the point being disputed by “Unfit for Publication” has any real importance at all.
My point in “The Obama Nation” was that Obama held a job as a community organizer prior to being recruited by Jerry Kellman to head the 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 argue Kellman did not find Obama simply by reading a job application Obama sent to him out of the blue, but Kellman was attracted to Obama because he had already started working in community organizing before he moved to Chicago to become a full-time professional community organizer in the Alinsky organization. On this point, “Unfit for Publication” is silent.
“In the 1980s, Kellman was a known figure in community organization and it is doubtful he would have driven from Chicago to New York just to meet a newly graduated college kid who wrote a letter looking for a job. More likely, Kellman went to New York to see if the reports coming out of New York City about Obama were right, that Obama’s profile might just fit in with Kellman’s organization.” [page 130]
“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. Kellman could have been in New York visiting family when he decided to set up an interview with Obama. The question raised in “The Obama Nation” is this: Why did Kellman bother to set up an interview with Obama?
The Obama rebuttal cites a Chicago Tribune report that says Kellman met Obama at a coffee shop on the Upper West Side and offered him the job on the spot, for roughly $10,000 a year. The Chicago Tribune story gives these details, but fails to say why he bothered to set up the interview in the first place.
“Unfit for Publication” offers no proof that Obama’s written application was the only information Kellman had about Obama when he decided to meet Obama in New York. Logically, this is the proof required to argue the statement on page 130 of “The Obama Nation” is a “lie.” At most, all we have here is a difference of opinion.
“Rush, for instance, has charged that activist Hazel Johnson discovered asbestos in Altgeld Gardens housing project long before Obama latched on to the issue and made it a major part of the community organizing story he tells about himself in “Dreams from My Father.” [page 135]
“Johnson’s Allegations Have Been Disputed and She Has Told Different Stories.”
Rejoinder to No. 22
“Unfit for Publication” intentionally takes the sentence quoted from page 135 of “The Obama Nation” out of context.
The immediately preceding sentence reads: “Representative Bobby Rush, the former Black Panther, who in 2000 defeated Obama for Congress, claims Obama exaggerates the limited success he had working in Chicago as a community organizer.” The “Rush” of the above sentence is then former Black Panther Bobby Rush.
That Johnson’s allegations have been disputed and that she has told different stories does not disprove that Bobby Rush charged Obama in their 2000 congressional contest with exaggerating the limited success Obama self-proclaimed he had working in Chicago as a community organizer.
Bobby Rush’s allegation calling into question Obama’s success as a community organizer was the point of the quoted sentence, not whether Hazel Johnson is a credible source or whether in fact Obama was a good community organizer, or not.
Once more, the Obama campaign rebuttal misses the point and fails to demonstrate any lie. “Unfit for Publication” fails yet another time in basic argumentation logic by neglecting to dispute the truth that Bobby Rush did say what “The Obama Nation” quoted him as saying.
“Sol Stern, a contributing editor of Chicago’s City Journal, has observed that while Ayers today ‘is widely regarded as a member in good standing of the city’s civic establishment, not an unrepentant domestic terrorist,’ the impression of Ayers’ good citizenship is incorrect.” [page 140]
“Ayers and Dohrn Are Members of the Establishment with Ties to the Mayor.”
Rejoinder to No. 23
Just as in the prior argument, “Unfit for Publication” is non-responsive, rebutting an issue that is not raised in the sentence quoted from “The Obama Nation.”
Whether or not Ayers and Dohrn are members of the establishment with ties to the mayor is irrelevant. Even if Ayers and Dohrn are members of the establishment with ties to the mayor, that does not prove or disprove what Sol Stern said. Sol Stern said the impression of Ayers’ good citizenship is incorrect. “The Obama Nation” is obviously not lying by quoting accurately Sol Stern’s statement.
“Unfit for Publication” apparently wants to debate the good citizenship of Ayers and Dohrn, not the truthfulness that Sol Stern said what “The Obama Nation” quotes him as saying.
That Sol Stern made the statement quoted in “The Obama Nation” is true. Whether Ayers and Dohrn are good citizens is debatable, obviously a matter of opinion. This is made clear by the contrast between Stern’s statement quoted above from page 140 of “The Obama Nation” and the contrast expressed in the opinions stated in the various quotations cited for this point in the Obama campaign rebuttal. Once again, no “lie” has been proved.
“Is presidential candidate Barack Obama’s decision to support Israel merely a matter of political convenience?” [p. 144]
“Obama Has a Long Record of Support for Israel.”
Rejoinder to No. 24
Here the failure of the Obama rebuttal to demonstrate even a modicum of argumentative logic is hard to believe. Again, how can a question be a lie?
The sentence quoted from page 144 of “The Obama Nation” is a question, not a statement of fact. I am asking whether candidate Barack Obama’s decision to support Israel is or is not merely a matter of convenience. In the question quoted, I am obviously not asserting Barack Obama’s decision to support Israel is merely a matter of convenience.
To support their “reality” position, the Obama campaign cites incidents where Obama supposedly spoke up in favor of Israel or co-sponsored legislation which could be considered favorable to Israel. These cited instances are non-responsive, proving only that there is evidence of Obama’s support for Israel. What remains debatable and a matter where differences of opinion exist is whether or not Obama’s decision to support Israel is or is not merely a matter of political convenience.
“The year 1995 was a banner one for Obama. He had just married Michelle and the couple bought a Hyde Park condo, the first home Obama ever owned.” [page 145]
“Obamas Married in 1992 and Bought a Condo in 1993.”
Rejoinder to No. 25
Getting these dates incorrect may be an error, but the mistake is hardly a lie. The gravity of the mistake is minimal, equivalent to misspellings, errors in punctuation, or minor discrepancies with quotations or data cited. The Obama campaign notes the error and the corrections are appreciated. Where is the harm in getting two dates wrong? The Obama campaign rebuttal fails to associate any substantive distortion to Sen. Obama that is done by the mistake.
I would also note that Sen. Obama can easily provide the necessary data so that making mistakes of this nature are much harder to do. His autobiography “Dreams from My Father” is admittedly not written in a chronological fashion. Fundamental questions about the dates of key events in Obama’s life are yet hidden. The Obama campaign still insists on withholding the original copy of Obama’s full birth certificate. Has a marriage certificate ever been located for Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham?
As I demonstrate in “The Obama Nation,” unchallenged by the Obama rebuttal, even in Indonesia there remains confusion over where Obama lived, how long he was there and what years exactly he attended the Catholic school and the public school. Was Obama adopted by his step-father Lolo Soetoro and did he travel to Indonesia on a U.S. or Indonesian passport?
In response to this “reality” claim, I am now requesting a comprehensive and a