"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."

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 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.

No. 2.

"Lie"

"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]

"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 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.

No. 3

"Lie"

"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]

"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 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."

No. 4

"Lie"

"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]

"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 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.

No. 5

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality'

"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.

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 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.

No. 7

"Lie"

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]

"Reality"

"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.

No. 8

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality"

"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.

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 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?

No. 10

"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]

"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 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?

No. 11

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality"

"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.

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 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.

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 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."

No. 14

"Lie"

"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]

"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 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].

No. 15

"Lie"

"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]

"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 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.

No. 16

"Lie"

"Even as Kenya entered this postelection violence, Senator Obama has continued 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 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.

No. 17

"Lie"

"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]

"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 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.

No. 18

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality"

"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. 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 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]

No. 20

"Lie"

" … 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]

"Reality"

"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.

No. 21

"Lie"

"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]

"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. 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.

No. 22

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality"

"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.

No. 23

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality"

"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.

No. 24

"Lie"

"Is presidential candidate Barack Obama's decision to support Israel merely a matter of political convenience?" [p. 144]

"Reality"

"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.

No. 25

"Lie"

"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]

"Reality"

"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 accurate timeline of Obama's life, along with all necessary documentation to verify the accuracy of the dates provided. In listing this information, Sen. Obama is requested to provide complete information on all jobs he has held, including the position he held at the City College of New York. Reports are now circulating that Obama traveled to Pakistan with friends in his college years. Exactly how many times has Obama been out of the United States and when? Who did he visit? What passports did he travel on? How long did he stay?

No. 26

"Lie"

"Instead of stepping aside in deference to Palmer, Obama decided to fight her for the nomination." [page 146]

"Reality"

"Palmer Pulled Her Own Plug."

Rejoinder to No. 26

I assume the slang phrase that Palmer "pulled her own plug" means Palmer made the decision to end her 1995-1996 campaign to be re-elected to her Illinois state senate seat after she came in third in the Democratic Party primary for U.S. Congress, behind Jesse Jackson, Jr., and Illinois state senate president Emil Jones, Jr.

Again, even if Palmer decided to end her candidacy, that fact alone does not prove the statement cited from page 146 of "The Obama Nation" is a lie. Palmer got signatures on a petition to put her name on the ballot for the Illinois state senate seat in the 1996 election after she lost the Democratic Party primary contest to Jackson and Jones. "Unfit for Publication" does not dispute that Obama hired lawyers and challenged Palmer's petition signatures. Nor does "Unfit for Publication" deny the claim made on pages 145-146 of "The Obama Nation" that Obama lawyers challenged the petitions of all four of his Democratic primary rivals, forcing them all off the ballot for the Illinois state senate seat.

In other words, Palmer may have "pulled her own plug," whatever that means, but she did so only after Obama's legal challenge had her candidacy thrown off the ballot. The third quote cited in this argument by "Unfit for Publication," the one from the Chicago Tribune on April 3, 2007, admits Obama made a legal challenge to the signatures on Palmer's petition. The newspaper article merely quotes Obama claiming he violated no law in challenging the signatures on Palmer's petition. In the quote, Obama also self-justified his actions saying, "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be."

Again, "Unfit for Publication" fails in fundamental argumentative logic. Clearly, Palmer withdrew from the race only after Obama presented a legal challenge to the signatures on her ballot petition. Thus, the statement from "The Obama Nation" on page 146 cited above is true. Obama did not step aside in deference to Palmer when she wanted to re-enter the state senate race after losing the U.S. congressional primary. Obama did decide to fight her for the nomination and he chose to fight her in the courts. The Obama campaign rebuttal appears to want to debate a different question, namely, whether or not Obama was justified in launching his legal challenge to Palmer's re-entry into the race. Again, that is a debatable question, and differing opinions can be found. Still, the question of whether or not Obama was justified in challenging in the courts Palmer's re-entry into the race is irrelevant to determining the truth of whether or not Obama refused to step aside in deference to Palmer when she changed her mind. The statement above from "The Obama Nation" on page 146 is obviously true, proved even by the sources the Obama campaign cites to support the imprecisely worded "reality" claim.

No. 27

"Lie"

"Besides, Obama had to know who Ayers is and what he stands for, especially with Ayers making this splash on 9/11." [page 147]

"Reality"

"Ayers comments were published on September 11; The Interview Occurred Prior to Publication."

Rejoinder to No. 27

The argumentative logic in this "reality" claim is not specified and remains unclear. Obviously, the interview with Ayers published in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, was conducted before the interview was printed. So what? The "reality" rebuttal admits Ayers’s comments were published in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, and that is exactly what the statement from page 147 of "The Obama Nation" claims.

The "splash" referred to in sentence in contention does not refer to any splash Ayers made giving the interview, but the news impact he made when the quotation appeared in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, the day of the attacks.

Evidently we are meant to divine some argument the Obama campaign rebuttal may or may not have had in order to claim the above statement on page 147 of "The Obama Nation" is a "lie."

The Obama campaign rebuttal provides no evidence Obama was unaware of Ayers' widely read statement published in the New York Times on the exact day the hijackers attacked on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Yet, is that even the issue "Unfit for Publication" is contending here?

Quite frankly, the argumentative logic of the Obama campaign rebuttal on this point is not only unstated, it is impossible to discern.

No. 28

"Lie"

"But when Chicago Sun-Times reporters finally confronted Obama on Friday, March 14, 2008, for an extended interview in the newspaper offices, the senator changed his tune." [page 154]

"Reality"

"Before Obama Sat Down for Three Hours with the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, He Had Repeatedly Addressed Questions Related to Rezko."

Rejoinder to No. 28

Again, the Obama campaign rebuttal fails on argumentative logic. That Obama may have repeatedly addressed questions to Rezko prior to sitting down for three hours with the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times, does not prove he did not change his story during the interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday, March 14, 2008.

Next, "Unfit for Publication" presents more than one page of statements Obama made at various times to the Chicago newspapers concerning his relationship with Rezko. Again, these citations are non-responsive. The sentence on page 154 from "The Obama Nation" cited above makes no claim that the March 14, 2008, interview with the Chicago Sun-Times was the only newspaper interview given by Obama concerning his relationship with Rezko.

Specifically, page 154 of "The Obama Nation" contends that during the interview with the Chicago Sun-Times on March 14, 2008, reporters presented Obama with information from John Thomas, an FBI mole, who often saw Obama coming and going at Rezko's offices. Three other sources told the newspaper that Obama and Rezko spoke on the phone daily. Obama was asked about this evidence at the interview.

"I have known him for 17 years," Obama finally admitted as I noted on page 154 of "The Obama Nation." "There were stretches of time where I would see him once or twice a year. But, as I said, when he was involved in the finance committee for the U.S. Senate race, or the state senate races, or the U.S. Congressional races, then he [Rezko] was an active member." My point on page 154 of The Obama Nation was that during this confrontation, Obama stopped trying to minimize his relationship with Rezko and dropped his previous story that he only had dinner or lunch with Rezko once or twice a year.

"Unfit for Publication" does not address this admission Obama made to the Chicago Sun-Times during the March 14, 2008. Thus, "Unfit for Publication" fails to prove the quoted sentence from page 154 of "The Obama Nation" is a "lie."

No. 29

"Lie"

"Undoubtedly, Obama's advance for the book had worn thin and Project Vote! was work he was qualified to do, given his community organizing experience and his law degree." [page 157]

"Reality"

"Obama Was Recruited to Project Vote."

Rejoinder to No. 29

Again, the "reality" argument made by "Unfit for Publication" is non-responsive. That Obama may have been recruited to head Project Vote! does not disprove he may have needed the money the job offered or that he was qualified to head the project by virtue of his community organizing experience and his law degree.

The quotation cited by "Unfit for Publication" evidently in support of the "reality" claim documents that Sandy Newman recruited Obama to head the Cook County Project Vote! office. In the quote, Newman speculates why Obama wanted the relative low-paying job. But the quote makes it clear Newman instead of having definitive information was only speculating about Obama's financial condition at the time. Yet, the "reality" claim offered above argues nothing about Obama's financial condition at the time he took the Project Vote! job, only that he was recruited for the job.

"The Obama Nation" on pages 157-158 specifically discusses Sandy Newman's decision to hire Obama for the Project Vote! job. So, both "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Publication" agree on this point. "The Obama Nation" makes no argument Obama was actively looking for a job by applying for employment with multiple possible employers at the time he took the Project Vote! job.

Moreover, the "reality" sentence produced for No. 29 is not stated explicitly as an argument. As such, it requires no refutation.

No. 30

"Lie"

"As we shall see, Rezko was persistent ultimately convincing Obama to drop working for political organizing causes so he cold supplement the dwindling advance he had received at Harvard to write a book with real income as a lawyer, working in the small Chicago law firm where the lead partner did much of Rezko’s slumlord legal work for him." [page 157]

"If Obama did not want to work directly for Rezko, then having Obama in David Miner Barnhill & Galland was possibly the next best thing for Rezko." [page 158] "The likelihood is that Rezko played a role in getting Obama to join Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland." [page 158]

"Reality"

"Judson Miner Recruited Obama to his Firm out of Harvard"

Rejoinder to No. 30

Yet again, the "reality" point is non-responsive. Even if it is true Judson Miner recruited Obama to his law firm out of Harvard, that does not prove Rezko played no role in Obama's decision.

"Unfit for Publication" fails to prove Rezko had nothing to do with Obama's decision to join the law firm.

No. 31

"Lie"

"Rezko found the house for Obama." [page 165]

"Reality"

"Obamas Looked at Several Houses Via Their Broker, House Listing Is Available on Obama's Website."

Rejoinder to No. 31

Yet again, the Obama campaign's rebuttal point expressed in the "reality" statement is non-responsive.

Even if the Obamas looked at several houses via their broker and the house listing is available on Obama's website, neither point proves the house was not introduced to Obama by Rezko.

The Obama dream property was across the street from Rezko's home. The source for that statement was a story in Salon.com quoting real estate Donna Schwan.

When asked who approached her about the house, Schwan told Salon, "I honestly don't remember. Tony Rezko lived across the street, so he'd been interested in the lot." [Edward McClelland, "How close were Barack Obama and Tony Rezko?" Salon.com, February 1, 2008. Nothing in the two quotations cited by "Unfit for Publication" in support of this "reality" claim contradict the Salon.com report.

No. 32

"Lie"

"The letters appeared to contradict statements from Obama that he never did any favors for Rezko." [page 162]

"Reality"

The Letter Was Written – Unsolicited – To Support What Would Become a Successful Seniors Housing Project."

Rejoinder to No. 32

Yet again, the "reality" statement is non-responsive in the attempt to prove a "lie." Even if the letter was unsolicited and the housing project was successful, Obama could still have been doing Rezko a favor by writing the letter.

"Unfit for Publication" does not refute that Obama wrote the letter. On page 162 of "The Obama Nation," I cite the work of investigative Tim Novak at the Chicago Sun-Times who exposed the fact that Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting the successful bid by his political patron, Tony Rezko, to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

To quote from page 162 of "The Obama Nation:" "The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and Allison Davis, Obama's former boss at the law firm, who had now left the firm to work with Rezko in public funded housing swindles. The development, called the Cottage View Terrace apartments, opened in 2002, providing 97 apartments for low-income senior citizens. From his office as state senator, Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting Rezko's bid to manage the low-income rehabs."

The next paragraph on pages 162-163 continues: "The letters appeared to contradict statements from Obama that he never did any favors for Rezko. Novak wrote, 'Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko – a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the firm where Obama worked – who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.' In addition to the $855,000 in development fees Rezko and Davis made on the Cottage View Terrace project, the company owned by Davis in the deal stood to make another $900,000 through federal tax credits."

None of this information is disputed in "Unfit for Publication."

Clearly, Obama's letters were helpful to Rezko, apparently contradicting statements from Obama that he never did any favors for Rezko.

Whether or not Rezko asked for the letters to be written or the projects were successful are both irrelevant to establishing the truth that Obama wrote the letters and the letters were helpful to Rezko, contradicting Obama's claims to the contrary.

No. 33

"Lie"

"Yet Obama’s campaign characteristically denied Obama had been involved in working at the law firm for Rezko or his rehab projects." [page 163]

"Reality"

"Obama Never Represented Rezko, Never, Never."

Rejoinder to No. 33

Yet, once again, the "reality" statement is non-responsive to the truth or falsehood of the sentence quoted above from page 163 of "The Obama Nation."

Whether or not Obama ever was legal counsel for Rezko has nothing to do with whether or not the Obama campaign characteristically denied Obama had been involved in working at the law firm for Rezko or his rehab projects.

In fact, the "reality" claim that Obama "never represented Rezko, never, never" proves the exact point I am making in the sentence quoted page 163 of "The Obama Nation." Even here in their so-called "rebuttal," the Obama campaign affirms my statement by once again denying categorically that Obama represented Rezko. That was my only point in the sentence under examination.

The only possible conclusion is that the sentence quoted from page 163 of "The Obama Nation" is clearly true, as proven by the "reality" language of "Unfit for Publication" itself.

No. 34

"Lie"

"Rezko came up with a solution. His wife, Rita, bought the vacant lot at full price, permitting Obama and Michelle to negotiate buying the house for $1.65 million, a discount of $300,000 from the asking price." [page 165]

"Reality"

"Obamas Made the Three Offers on the House, Including the Highest; The Price of the House Was Not Contingent on the Price of the Lot."

Rejoinder to No. 34

What is not disputed by the Obama rebuttal is that Obama and Michelle bought their dream property home for $1.65 million, a sum that was $300,000 less than the initial asking price.

The first part of the "reality" claim is once again non-responsive. Whether or not the Obamas made three offers on the house is irrelevant. The house was still sold for $1.65 million, $300,000 less than the initial asking price.

Also, that the accepted offer was the highest is self-apparent.

The quotations offered by the Obama rebuttal to support this "reality" claim appear to be refuting an argument that the Obamas did something "wrong" by negotiating to buy the lot with the house, while Rezko bought the vacant lot.

A close reading of the sentence from page 165 of "The Obama Nation" quoted above makes clear that I am not charging the Obamas violated any law in negotiating with Rezko to buy the dream property. Once again, "Unfit for Publication" appears to be refuting a straw man argument I did not make.

Whether Obama and Rezko worked together to produce a combined offer that was acceptable to the sellers seems apparent from the information available on the transaction. Again, I make no argument in "The Obama Nation" that this type of buyer coordination is inherently illegal.

The contention in this section of "The Obama Nation" is that Obama acted unwisely to consummate this deal with Rezko, a shady character who is now a convicted felon in federal prison. Obama himself admitted this point when he told the Chicago newspapers the dream property transaction was "a bonehead deal," something "Unfit for Publication" does not deny.

No. 35

"Lie"

"Rezko agreed to pay the $14,000 cost of building the fence and Obama agreed to pay his landscaper to mow Rita's lot for her." [page 166]

"Reality"

"Municipal Code Stated that Rezko Had to Pay for the Fence."

Rejoinder to No. 35

Again, the "reality" response is non-responsive. Whether or not the municipal code stated that Rezko had to pay for the fence is irrelevant to the fact that Rezko agreed to pay the $14,000 cost of building the fence and Obama agreed to pay his landscaper to mow Rita's lot for her.

In other words, even if the municipal code stated Rezko had to pay for the fence, that fact does not make it a lie that Rezko agreed to pay the $14,000 cost of building the fence and Obama agreed to pay his landscaper to mow Rita's lot for her.

If anything, the fact that the municipal code stated Rezko had to pay for the fence might explain why Rezko agreed to pay the $14,000 to build the fence and Obama agreed in turn to pay his landscaper to mow Rita's lot for her.

"Unfit for Publication" fails here to produce any fact or argument that would make the quoted statement from page 166 of "The Obama Nation" a "lie."

No. 36

"Lie"

"Obama could offer no explanation of why Rita Rezko bought the vacant lot instead …" [page 169]

"Reality"

"Obama Didn’t Know That the Lot Was in Rita Rezko's Name Until it Was In the Chicago Tribine."

Rejoinder to No. 36

This exchange demonstrates once again the Obama campaign's proclivity to quote partial sentences from "The Obama Nation" and to take out of context sentences from the book for rebuttal.

The full sentence reads: "Obama could offer no explanation of why Rita Rezko bought the vacant lot instead, and he complained that the sellers were private people who objected to the reporters intruding into their lives with hostile questions."

With this sentence I am establishing the point made on the previous page, namely that "The transcript of the question-and-answer session clearly shows the Tribune staff had a hard time believing Obama. Yet Obama persisted, denying he coordinated the purchase with Rezko."

The argument made in the “reality” statement above confirms my argument. That Obama claims he did not know the vacant lot was in Rita Rezko's name until that information appeared in the newspaper shows once again Obama's determination to deny any knowledge which would suggest he coordinated the sale with Rezko.

In this section of "The Obama Nation," I am making the point that Obama's denials were not credible to the Chicago Tribune staff. "Unfit for Publication" asserts Obama did not know Rita had bought the vacant lot until he read it in the newspaper, but "Unfit for Publication" fails to prove that Obama’s claim is believable, let alone true. At worst, the issue of what Obama knew or didn't know about the Rezko transaction is debatable. Moreover, Obama's testimony on the question cannot be accepted as prima facie true, especially since Obama has an obvious political motive for making us believe he knew nothing at all about Tony and Rita Rezko's involvement in the transaction.

No. 37

"Lie"

"As fully expected, the Obama campaign continued to maintain Obama had never met Auchi, saying in effect that Levine committed perjury." [page 173]

"Reality"

"Auchi Does Not Recall Meeting the Obamas."

Rejoinder to No. 37

Yet again, the Obama campaign's "reality" point is non-responsive. Whether or not Auchi remembers meeting the Obamas does not prove or disprove that the Obama campaign has continued to maintain Obama never met Auchi.

If anything, the "reality" comment tends to affirm the truth of the sentence quoted as a "lie" from page 173 of "The Obama Nation." By stating that Auchi does not recall meeting the Obamas, "Unfit for Publication" on behalf of the Obama campaign once again maintains Obama had never met Auchi, the exact point I asserted in the quoted sentence.

We should also note that Auchi's claim he does not recall meeting Obama is not proof positive that he did not do so in fact.

No. 38

"Lie"

When he was incarcerated in Iraq, Alsammarae contacted multiple elected officials in the United States to help him. Obama's Senate office has admitted Obama sought information from the U.S. State Department about Alsammarae on October 16, 2006, and got a reply from the U.S. consul in Iraq about a week later." [page 174]

"Reality"

"Senate Office Sent 'Routine' Letter After a Request from Alsammarae's Daughter."

Rejoinder to No. 38

Once again, the "reality" response of the Obama campaign rebuttal confirms the sentence quoted above from page 174 of "The Obama Nation." The "reality" statement confirms a letter was sent from Obama's Senate office on Alsammarae's behalf, which was what the sentence I wrote asserted. I made no claim in the sentence whether the letter sent was "routine," or otherwise.

The quotations offered by "Unfit for Publication" to support this "reality" claim all confirm what the sentence quoted from the book claims, namely, that Obama's Senate office did send letters to the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Iraq. Once again, instead of refuting the sentence from "The Obama Nation" under question, the "reality" claim of "Unfit for Publication" provides additional support that the claims made in the sentence quoted from page 174 of "The Obama Nation" are true.

No. 39

"Lie"

"After Kellman hired him, Obama followed Alinsky's rules by moving into the Hyde Park-Kenwood area he had been assigned to organize." [page 184]

"Reality"

"Obama Lived in Hyde Park, but Organized in Altgeld."

Rejoinder to No. 39

The Hyde Park-Kenwood area and Altgeld are both on Chicago's South Side. The Hyde Park-Kenwood area is along I-94 by around W. 47th Street. Altgeld is along I-94 by East 130th street. For those who live in Chicago, these may be important distinctions. For the purposes of "The Obama Nation," I was making the argument that Obama moved to Chicago to live on the South Side because he was going to be organizing in Altgeld, which is also on Chicago's South Side.

The "reality" objection above demonstrates only that Obama moved into a more elite section of Chicago's South Side, the Hyde Park-Kenwood area in the Washington Park area around the University of Chicago, rather than in the more poverty stricken minority Altgeld section of Chicago's South Side.

The Obama campaign fails to rebut the substantive point being made in the above section, not that Obama moved into the project or the immediate neighborhood where he was organizing, but that following Alinsky's model, Obama moved to Chicago's South Side, where he could live in a South Side neighborhood while organizing a South Side community.

The point being made in "The Obama Nation" is that Obama moved from New York to Chicago to take up his new job as head of the Alinsky-organization's Developing Communities Project.

If precise addresses where Obama lived are really pertinent to the Obama campaign, I invite the Obama campaign to print a comprehensive list of all address where Obama has lived as well as the years he lived there.

No. 40

"Lie"

"When the 1995 Chicago Reader article surfaced in 2008, Obama supporters predictably tried to distance him from the Million Man March, arguing Obama had attended the event as an observer, not as a participant. Still, Obama's reaction at the time was enthusiastic." [page 191]

"Reality"

"In 1995, Obama Criticized – At Length – Farrakhan's Message."

Rejoinder to No. 40

The "reality" point above is non-responsive to my argument that Obama attended the Million Man March in 1995. Evidently, the Obama campaign now admits Obama did attend the Farrakhan-hosted event. The only dispute seems to be whether Obama's reaction at the time was enthusiastic or critical.

The Obama campaign rebuttal typically takes out of context my sentences from page 191.

Had the Obama campaign rebuttal reproduced my next two sentences they would have seen the evidence I cite for claiming Obama was enthusiastic about attending the 1995 Million Man March.

The next two sentences from page 191 of "The Obama Nation" are as follows: "'What I saw was a powerful demonstration of an impulse and need for African-American men to come together to recognize each other and affirm our rightful place in the society,' he [Obama] told the Chicago Reader. 'There was a profound sense that African-American men were ready to make a commitment to bring about change in our communities and lives.'"

In the next paragraph, I detail reservations Obama expressed to the Chicago Reader in the same 1995 article. Much of the two quotations "Unfit for Publication" prints to support this "reality" assertion contain the exact same quotes I used in this next paragraph the Obama campaign rebuttal fails to notice.

Reading the entire context of the sentence quoted from page 191, "The Obama Nation" makes clear Obama expressed reservations about the Million Man March after he attended it. Thus, the "reality" comment that "in 1995, Obama criticized at length Farrakhan’s message" appears to support as true what I wrote in this section of the book, looked at not as one isolated sentence, but as the several related paragraphs on the page. Importantly, in raising this "reality" point, we now have clearly on the record the Obama campaign’s complete admission that Obama did attend the 1995 Louis Farrakhan-organized Million Man March on Washington, D.C.

No. 41

"Lie"

"Kessler claimed he and Obama both heard Wright preach a sermon that day in which the preacher blamed the 'white arrogance' of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks." [page 196]

"Reality"

"Obama Was in Florida the Day of Wright's Sermon."

Rejoinder to No. 41

Once again, the Obama campaign rebuttal takes my sentence out of context. Had "Unfit for Publication" cared to acknowledge my next sentence on page 196, the following sentence would have been found: "The Obama campaign promptly posted a new denial, claiming Obama did not attend church services in Chicago on July 22."

The failure to acknowledge the second sentence in order to claim the sentence quoted was a "lie" represents a transparent attempt by the Obama campaign to distort my meaning in their effort to create "lies" in "The Obama Nation" where no "lie" could be proven if the text were dealt with honestly.

Not only has "Unfit for Publication" taken my sentence on page 196 out of context, the rebuttal also addresses yet another straw man argument.

In other words, I was not arguing that Obama was in church as Kessler claimed, on July 22. I was arguing what the next paragraph on page 196 in "The Obama Nation" concludes: "What the sequence proved was that Obama was in for a prolonged series of investigations and denials if he insisted on maintaining his story that he never personally heard Wright preach anything politically objectionable."

This point is not refuted by "Unfit for Publication." To date, Obama has not produced a definitive list of the dates when he was in Trinity United Church of Christ to hear Rev. Wright preach.

Yet, more importantly, "Unfit for Publication" ignores the argument that that the dates Obama attended is truly unimportant. My argument is that black-liberation theology is by its very nature an anti-white, anti-American revolutionary religion. On the previous page, page 195 of "The Obama Nation," I wrote: "Denying he had been in church when the sermons were given quickly turned out not to be a credible response. As we have demonstrated, the anti-white, anti-American statements Wright made in his sermons derive directly from key tenets of black-liberation theology and its roots in black power and Malcolm X." [page 195]

My point is that if Obama is intelligent enough to get a Harvard law degree, he is also intelligent enough to understand the true meaning of black-liberation theology. Wright did not preach only occasional anti-white, anti-American sermons; he had been preaching them for the entire 20 years Obama belonged to the church.

No. 42

"Lie"

"Axelrod most likely liked how the speech worked with his client in Massachusetts and so decided to try it once again with Obama, perhaps thinking no one would notice." [page 227]

"Reality"

"Plagiarism Attack Was a 'Baseless and Desperate Ploy.'"

Rejoinder to No. 42

Once more, "Unfit for Publication" is not responsive, attacking yet another straw man argument the book does not make.

"The Obama Nation" does not charge Sen. Obama and his campaign strategist David Axelrod of plagiarism in copying the Deval Patrick speech in question. Specifically, "The Obama Nation" notes only that Obama "borrowed" phrases from a speech given by Alexrod's client Deval Patrick when he was running for Massachusetts governor. [page 225].

On page 227 of "The Obama Nation," I wrote: "Appearing on ABC on February 19, Patrick defused the controversy by claiming a charge of plagiarism was not fair. 'It's an elaborate and an extravagant one,' Patrick said. But it was undeniable that Obama had copied Patrick exactly."

On page 227, I even present Obama's contention he had done nothing wrong copying Patrick. There I wrote: "At a press conference in Youngstown, Ohio, Obama admitted he should have given credit to his friend Governor Patrick, saying, 'I was on the stump, and he [Deval Patrick] had suggested that we use these lines. I thought they were good lines. I'm sure I should have [given him credit], [but I] didn't this time.'"

Once again, "Unfit for Command" intentionally distorts my meaning in "The Obama Nation" in order to claim a "lie" where there is none.

No. 43

"Lie"

"In a section on borrowed lines from movies, Corsi wrote, 'Obama has repeatedly used the words bamboozled and hoodwinked in framing his argument that the truth has been hidden from voters.'" [page 228]

"Reality"

"Many Use the Words Hoodwinked and Bamboozled."

Rejoinder to No. 43

Once again, "Unfit for Publication" intentionally distorts my meaning by not quoting exactly the sentence in question.

What I wrote on page 228 of "The Obama Nation" referred to a comment made by Internet blogger Seymour Glass. What I wrote was this: "Glass pointed out that in many primary states, including South Carolina, Maryland, Delaware, and Texas, Obama has repeatedly used the words bamboozled and hoodwinked in framing his argument that the truth has been hidden from voters. Unfortunately, the language is not unique to Obama. Glass traced the use of 'bamboozled' and 'hoodwinked' back to dialogue Lee wrote for actor Denzel Washington, who played the character of Malcolm X in Lee's movie."

Nothing in "Unfit for Publication" casts any doubt on the authenticity of the Glass quotation. Please note, in the sentence fragment quoted by "Unfit for Publication," I appear to be making a direct statement of my own, rather than quoting someone else. Deciding to use a partial sentence this way, the Obama campaign rebuttal was intentionally distorting my meaning once again in order to declare as a "lie" a statement that was quoted accurately.

Yet this is not the only failure of the Obama campaign rebuttal's argumentative logic in this instance.

The Obama campaign asserts as "reality" that many other than Obama himself use the words "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled."

This may be true. Still, that others use the words in similar contexts does not prove Obama is not copying from the Malcolm X lines in the Spike Lee movie. Maybe others copy the Malcolm X lines in the Spike Lee movie as well.

No. 44

"Lie"

"On February 18, 2008, at a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Michelle Obama made a political gaffe, implying to the audience she had not been proud of America until her African-American husband had ascended to be a front-runner candidate for president." page 230]

"Reality"

"Republicans, Including Laura Bush, Have Admitted to Understanding What Michelle Was Trying to Say."

Rejoinder to No. 44

Again, the "reality" statement is logically non-responsive. That Republicans, including Laura Bush, have admitted to understanding what Michelle was trying to say does not mean it is a "lie" that on February 18, 2008, at a rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Michelle Obama said, "And let me tell you something – for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country."

Michelle did make the comments I quoted at the rally I cited.

The "reality" claim in "Unfit for Publication" argues Laura Bush has admitted to understanding what Michelle was trying to say. Unless Laura Bush can claim mind-reading abilities, she is only guessing at what Michelle was trying to say.

In "The Obama Nation," I claim no such psychic powers. Consistently, throughout the book, I search for definitive proof of key issues. On pages 230-231 of "The Obama Nation," I quote what Michelle Obama said at that rally. "Unfit for Publication" does not contest that the report I give of Michelle Obama's comments at the rally are accurate.

The only point in contention appears to be the interpretation of those remarks. Rather than judging the words myself, I report on page 231 of "The Obama Nation" that: "Within hours of the speech, a firestorm of criticism broke out on talk radio and cable news networks." That, too, was true.

I also report on pages 231 and 232 alternative interpretations of Michelle's remarks that the Obama campaign put out in the attempt to spin the comments in a manner consistent with apparently Laura Bush's interpretation of the words.

In "The Obama Nation," I report Michelle's words and the controversy that developed over Michelle's words. I do not claim any conclusion regarding her internal mental state or her ideas that the words may or may not reflect.

The "reality" refutation above typically misses the point by refuting some unspecified claim that I did not make.

No. 45

"Lie"

"Christopher Hitchens noted on Salon.com that Michelle announces in her Princeton thesis that she has been influenced by the definition of 'black separatism' given by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1867 (sic) book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America." [page 232]

"Reality"

"Using a Definition is Not the Same Thing As Having Influence."

Rejoinder to No. 45

Of all the poorly formed arguments in "Unfit for Publication" this may be the worst. It is hard to determine what the authors mean by claiming that "using a definition" is not the same thing as "having influence."

At most, "Unfit for Publication" seems to be quibbling with Christopher Hitchens, whom I quote in the sentence under consideration on page 232 of "The Obama Nation," not with me.

Typically, the Obama campaign rebuttal authors seem unable to distinguish from claims I quote others making and claims I make in my own voice.

Even if we concede that "using a definition is not the same thing as having influence," regardless what the statement means, that still does not make it a lie to claim Christopher Hitchens announced in Salon.com his conclusion that Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton's 1967 book Black Power influenced her by their definition of "black separatism." The Christopher Hitchens quotation is accurate.

No. 46

"Lie"

"Writing about 'Born Alive' legislation: 'Not wanting to be the only Illinois state senator to vote against the bill, a move that Obama realized would be politically unpopular with his constituency, he took the easy way our (sic) and voted 'Present.'" [page 238]

"Reality"

"20 Illinois Senators Opposed Born Alive Bills, 15 Voted Present on One or More of the Bills."

Rejoinder to No. 46

The record is clear that Obama voted 'present' on the March 2001 bill that came out of the Illinois Judiciary Committee in an effort to make sure babies who survived late-term labor-induced abortions had a right to live. The only dispute in the 'reality' claim here is that a number of Illinois state senators voted 'present,' not just Obama.

This fact does not make the quoted sentence above from page 238 of "The Obama Nation" a "lie." Clearly Obama did not want to vote 'no' on the measure, a vote he had to know would be unpopular with his constituency. Thus, he would not want to be the only state senator voting 'no' on the measure. The 'reality' claim does not specify how many 'no' votes were cast on the measure in question, just that 34 percent of the state Senate voted 'present' or 'no' on one or more of the 'Born Alive' bills before the Illinois legislature at that time.

Simply put, the quibble appears to be rather technical and minor. "Unfit for Publication" appears to agree with "The Obama Nation" that Obama voted "present" and that a "no" vote would have been unpopular with his constituency.

No. 47

"Lie"

"Critics on the right, who were anything but enthusiastic, sarcastically renamed the bill the 'Global Poverty Tax.'" [page 250]

"Reality"

"Global Poverty Act Does Not Increase Taxes."

Rejoinder to No. 47

Again, the "reality" point is not responsive. Even if it were true that the Global Poverty Act does not increase taxes does not prove false that critics on the right have sarcastically renamed the bill the "Global Poverty Tax."

Page 251 of "The Obama Nation" specifically documents that conservative stalwart Phyllis Schlafly has argued Obama's Global Poverty Act will ultimately amount to a UN tax being imposed on U.S. citizens with no concern that, according to Schlafly, "U.S. handouts go into the hands of corrupt dictators who hate us and vote against us in the UN, and that only 30 percent of American foreign aid ever reaches the poor."

At worst, the issue of whether or not Obama's Global Poverty Act would increase taxes is a debatable matter of opinion. Nothing in the Obama campaign rebuttal refutes the truth that many conservatives have chosen to rename the bill a Global Poverty Tax.

No. 48

"Lie"

"He has pledged to reduce the size of the military and stop spending money on expensive new military systems, so we can redirect the savings to social welfare spending." [page 257]

Reality"

"Obama Would Increase the Size of the Military."

Rejoinder to No. 48

The Obama campaign rebuttal has produced a series of quotes claiming Obama would increase defense spending, demonstrating only that the issue is debatable, not that the sentence quoted on page 257 of "The Obama Nation" is a "lie."

The statement on page 257 is based on the Obama 52-second campaign video that is discussed in "The Obama Nation" on pages 1-3 of the Introduction. Here, Obama says, "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile systems." He also claims, "I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary military spending."

"The Obama Nation" makes the case that Obama has been trained in the Saul Alinsky system and has taught the Saul Alinsky methodology, two claims the Obama campaign rebuttal does not refute.

That Obama has made statements suggesting he would increase the size of the military are then arguably statements Obama made to appeal to defense-minded voters, not statements that prove the sentence quoted on page 257 of "The Obama Nation" is necessarily false.

No. 49

"Lie"

"He has been endorsed by Hamas and had to fire a Middle Eastern advisor who had been meeting privately with Hamas." [page 257]

"Reality"

"Hamas Did Not Endorse Obama, Informal Advisor Resigned."

Rejoinder to No. 49

The claim Hamas endorsed Obama is based on the April 13, 2006, radio show in which Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily and talk radio host John Bachelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, the chief political advisor to the prime minister of Hamas, on ABC radio. In this interview, Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections." The documentation of this radio interview is presented in "The Obama Nation" on pages 269-270. The Obama campaign rebuttal offers no evidence that this radio interview did not happen.

Rob Malley, a Middle East policy advisor, is no longer with the campaign. He severed ties with the Obama campaign after the Times of London confirmed Malley had been holding a series of previously undisclosed, private meetings with Hamas. This too is documented in "The Obama Nation" on pages 270-271. That Malley resigned proves nothing. Frequently, campaign advisors, formal as well as informal, are allowed to resign from political campaigns rather than be fired, as a matter of political convenience.

At worst, this issue is debatable, but the weight of evidence supports the sentence quoted from page 257 of "The Obama Nation." Yousef clearly expressed his support for Obama's presidential campaign and Malley is no longer with the Obama presidential campaign.

No. 50

"Lie"

"Another advisor with decidedly anti-Israel views is General Merrill 'Tony' McPeak, retired U.S. Air Force chief of staff under President Clinton, who is currently a senior foreign policy advisor and co-chairman of Obama's presidential campaign committee." [page 267]

"Reality"

"Smearing McPeak as an Anti-Semite is Grotesque."

Rejoinder to No. 50

The quotation cited in the "reality statement above" that "smearing McPeak as an anti-Semite is grotesque," comes from James Fallon, a neuroscientist and Obama supporter whose views about McPeak are partisan opinion at best.

Opinions are debatable views, not definitive proof my statement is a "lie." The Obama campaign rebuttal does not deny any of the pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel quotations from McPeak that I document on pages 267-268 of "The Obama Nation."

No. 51

"Lie"

"Critics charge that Obama's 'No Nukes' policy also bears another resemblance to the bestselling rock album: both sounded good, but neither had any realistic chance of accomplishing the policy goal they proclaimed." [page 261]

"Reality"

"Eliminating Nuclear Arsenal is a Bipartisan Goal and Obama Has Worked with Republican Dick Lugar to That End."

Rejoinder to No. 51

The Obama campaign rebuttal's "reality" point is non-responsive. The sentence quoted on page 261 of "The Obama Nation" makes no claim that Obama's efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament are partisan or bi-partisan. The claim is that Obama is inexperienced and his proposals are naïve.

"The Obama Nation" argues that every president since Harry Truman has tried to achieve nuclear disarmament and failed. No president got closer than Ronald Reagan at the 1986 summit with Mikhail Gorbachev, then president of the Soviet Union, in Iceland. Gorbachev offered major concessions on reducing nuclear weapons, with only one proviso: The United States had to agree to abandon the space-based missile defense program. Reagan refused and the negotiations failed. I ask on page 264 of "The Obama Nation," "Short of unilateral nuclear disarmament, what sentence does Obama think he can form that will convince China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran that they are making a mistake to pursue nuclear weapons?"

"Unfit for Publication" does not demonstrate that Obama, even with the assistance of Republican Dick Lugar, has a workable plan for achieving nuclear disarmament in the world of real politics.

Ad Hominem Attacks: The Lowest Form of Argumentation

Pages 34-40 of "Unfit for Publication," approximately 15 percent of the total document, are devoted to ad hominem attacks against me.

Since the days of ancient Greek rhetoric, ad hominem attacks have been considered the lowest form of argumentation. Typically, debaters or apologists only resort to ad hominem attacks only when they have already lost the argument because they are unable to win through evidence and logic. Ad hominem attacks attempt to discourage the listener from paying attention to the arguments made. The problem is that ad hominem arguments fail to refute the substantive contentions of the person who is being attacked personally.

In a section entitled "Consider the Source: Corsi Holds Widely Discredited Beliefs," the Obama campaign rebuttal presents entirely one-sided, emotionally-laden and partial descriptions or distortions of arguments I have made in books and on the radio concerning topics unrelated to the subject matter of "The Obama Nation." Put simply, these ad hominem attacks are irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of the arguments I make in "The Obama Nation."

The section begins with a string of abusive adjectives stating that "Corsi is an advocate for fringe conspiratorial arguments." Arguments launched against my previous books "Black Gold Stranglehold" and the "Late Great USA" have been already rejoined in the first pages of this rejoinder and will not be repeated here.

In this section, "Unfit for Publication" charges "Corsi is a 9/11 Truth Believer – That Airplanes Were Not Truly to Blame for Destruction of World Trade Towers." Earlier I rejoined this point as well. I want to make only one additional point here. As "proof" for this contention, "Unfit for Publication" cites a radio interview I gave on the Alex Jones show on January 29, 2008. In that interview I discussed evidence I was planning to publish concerning scientific analysis of the 9/11 debris in the World Trade Center collapse. Nowhere in that interview do I make any leap to suggest the U.S. government was culpable in causing the attacks. As noted before, the article being discussed was never published. As I completed my review of the scientific evidence, I withdrew the draft from WorldNetDaily because I felt the scientific evidence was not ultimately convincing. As stated earlier in this rejoinder, I continue to support the 9/11 Commission conclusion that the hijackers were the sole cause of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

This section also notes that I co-authored "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," even though I am not a veteran myself. I have never claimed to be a veteran and "Unfit for Publication" makes no argument why being a veteran was a necessary requirement for co-authoring that book.

The section points out that I co-authored with Jim Gilchrist a book entitled "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders." The authors of "Unfit for Publication" fail to state any argument why this is relevant.

Next, "Unfit for Publication" note an earlier book I wrote in 2005, entitled "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." "Unfit for Publication" quotes an article from the Daily News printed before the book was published, in which aids to various Democratic senators including John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy objected to the book being a "Democrat-thrashing tome." Yet, "Unfit for Publication" fails to consider, let alone refute, the evidence I presented in Chapter 4 of "Atomic Iran," including a deposition I attended in New York, on October 18, 2004, of Hassan Nemazee, one of John Kerry's top fund-raisers in his 2004 presidential campaign, that was produced to support the claims made in the book. The next section of "Unfit for Publication" is entitled "Consider the Source: Corsi is a Bigot." Here the Obama rebuttal publishes a series of comments I wrote on FreeRepublic.com, ignoring my apologies for the comments and my insistence the comments did not then and do not now reflect my true beliefs.

This section makes the argument that I was dropped from "Unfit for Command" promotions because of views expressed in these FreeRepublic.com posts.

Throughout the 2004 election cycle, I remained active in promoting "Unfit for Command" as has been documented by Scott Swett and Tim Ziegler in their 2008 book entitled "To Set the Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry." I attended as an invited guest multiple meetings of the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and was honored by awards given by the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth for my participation in their campaign.

That the Obama campaign feels compelled to attack me personally in order to refute "The Obama Nation" is a clear indication how weak and troubled are the arguments the campaign is capable of mounting in defense of their candidate.

I trust unbiased readers will see the ad hominem attacks leveled at me by "Unfit for Publication" for what they are – attacks unworthy of any serious effort to elect a candidate to the highest political office in the United States.

The last section of "Unfit for Publication" lists "Offensive Language in Corsi's Book." Without repeating the cited sentences drawn out of context from "The Obama Nation," I also trust unbiased readers to see what the Obama campaign is attempting to accomplish here – to rule out of bounds as politically incorrect language as any comment adverse to Sen. Obama, regardless of their truth, if any reference is made whatsoever to race, national identity, religion, disease or sex.

My rejoinder is simple: The Obama campaign rebuttal fails to demonstrate any of the comments itemized as politically objectionable in their limited view were false. Targeting as politically correct any and all unpleasant criticisms of Sen. Obama or any and all politically inconvenient comments regarding Sen. Obama is nothing more than an attempt at political censorship that has no place within the robust intent of open discussion as defined by the First Amendment.

If personal abuse is the price for writing a book that is critical of Sen. Obama, then that is a price I will gladly pay, especially since the 40-page rebuttal plus cover has failed to prove a single falsehood contained in pages of the book, "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality."

Changes for the Next Printing

I will make the following corrections to the next printing of The Obama Nation. The corrections will be handled as the type of revisions that are typically made in book printings subsequent to the first printing:

1. Page 7 now reads: "He was comfortable in the belief that his off-the-record comments were not being recorded, but unbeknownst to the senator, Mayhill Fowler, a self-appointed 'freelance journalist,' managed to gain entry to the event and recorded his comments on a simple device with less than perfect sound." It will be corrected to read: "He was comfortable in the belief that his off-the-record comments were not being recorded, but unbeknownst to the senator, Mayhill Fowler, a member of citizen journalism project at the Huffington Post, managed to gain entry to the event and recorded his comments on a simple device with less than perfect sound."
   
   
2. Page 9 now reads: "In 'real life,' Fowler is the wife of attorney James C. Fowler, a McCain supporter who is a partner in the prestigious law firm Bingham & McClutchen, one of whose clients is Alex Mehran, the wealthy San Francisco real estate developer who hosted the private fund-raising party where Obama spoke. Two San Francisco bloggers reported that Fowler had tried to get into one of two Obama fund-raiser events in the Bay Area a couple of months earlier, when former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley stood in as a proxy. Both times Fowler was turned away, although evidently she had offered to pay to be allowed to attend." It will be corrected to read: "In 'real life,' Fowler is the wife of attorney James C. Fowler, a lifelong Democrat who is a partner in the prestigious law firm Bingham & McClutchen, one of whose clients is Alex Mehran, the wealthy San Francisco real estate developer who hosted the private fund-raising party where Obama spoke. Two San Francisco bloggers reported that Fowler had tried to get into one of two Obama fund-raiser events in the Bay Area a couple of months earlier, when former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley stood in as a proxy. They reported that both times Fowler was turned away, although evidently she had offered to pay to be allowed to attend, although she says she was invited and attended."
   
   
3. Page 25 now reads: "Nowhere in the autobiography does Obama disclose that his wife-to-be accompanied him to Africa on the 1992 trip." It will be corrected to read: "Only in the epilogue to the autobiography does Obama disclose that his wife-to-be accompanied him to Africa on the 1992 trip."
   
   
4. Page 48 now reads: "Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to his time in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes no reference to Maya's birth." It will be corrected to read: "Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to his time in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes only one reference in passing to Maya's birth."
   
   
5. Page 49 now reads: "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." It will be corrected to read: "Obama did not include a separate dedication page in 'Dreams from My Father.' Instead, he included the dedication in the introduction, mentioning his mother, his grandparents and his siblings 'stretched across oceans and continents.' Missing are mentions of his father and his step-father."
   
   
6. Page 77 now reads: "Still Obama has yet to answer questions whether he ever dealt drugs, or if he stopped using marijuana and cocaine completely in college, or whether his drug use extended into his law school days or beyond." It will be corrected to read: "Obama told several reporters that he stopped taking drugs sometime during his college years."
   
   
7. Page 123 now reads: "No one in Obama's paternal or maternal family had ever resided in Chicago." It will be corrected to read: "No one in Obama's paternal or maternal family except for a great uncle had ever resided in Chicago."
   
   
8. Page 129 now reads: "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.' It will be changed to "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 also mentions only in passing in his autobiography, 'Dreams from My Father.'"
   
   
9. Page 130 now reads: "More likely, Kellman went to New York to see if reports coming out of New York City about Obama were right, that Obama's profile might just fit in with Kellman's organization." It will be corrected to read: "Kellman happened to be visiting family in New York, so he was able to schedule an appointment to see for himself if reports coming out of New York City about Obama were right, that Obama's profile might just fit in with Kellman's organization."
   
   
10. Page 145 now reads: "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. In 1995, Obama became an author when his first book, his autobiography, 'Dreams from my Father,' was published, to modest sales, but good reviews." It will be corrected to read: "The year 1995 was a banner one for Obama. He had married Michelle in 1992 and the couple bought a Hyde Park condo in 1993, the first home Obama ever owned. In 1995, Obama became an author when his first book, his autobiography, 'Dreams from my Father,' was published, to modest sales, but good reviews."
    
    
11. Page 257 now reads: "He has been endorsed by Hamas and had to fire a Middle Eastern advisor who had been meeting privately with Hamas." It will be corrected to read: "He has been endorsed by a Hamas advisor and accepted the resignation of a Middle Eastern advisor who had been meeting privately with Hamas."