You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘bill clinton’ tag.
By Jose Rodriguez
Barack Obama ran for President promising to bring “change” to Washington D.C., which turned out to be a winning promise. Even though Americans elected him to bring that change, there has been a shrill and loud portion of our society, motivated by partisan hatred, who have stopped at nothing to block his efforts to bring the change that Americans elected him to enact. Change is a frightening prospect for this segment of society, who respond with scurrilous allegations: Obama is really a Muslim; he hates America; he’s a socialist; he was not really born in this country; he’s a Nazi; he wants to kill old people; and on and on and on. People, like Rep. Joe Wilson, want to engage in that form of demagoguery in order to uphold the status quo. They want to shout down the President during an important speech, calling him a liar or contradicting him.
But Joe Wilson is not the first Wilson to shout at a President advocating for change during a speech.
In late November 1995, President Bill Clinton became the first U.S. President to make an official visit to Northern Ireland. More so than any President before or since, Bill Clinton was heavily involved in the Irish peace process; Clinton even appointed former Maine Senator George Mitchell to be the first Special Envoy to Ireland (George Mitchell is now the Special Envoy to the Middle-East, where he hopes to broker a peace deal). The conflict between Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland seemed so intractable that no previous President wanted to expend any energy finding a solution. President Clinton, however, had made bold promises to the Irish community in the United States, and he intended to keep them. By going to Ireland, he hoped to jump start the failing negotiations between Catholics and Protestants, who had been locked in conflict (known as the Troubles) for decades. Before long, not only had Clinton fallen completely in love with the Irish, but the Irish fell head over-heels in love with the Clintons (Hillary benefited from this love during her Presidential run in 2008). That the leader of the free world would come and meet with Irish leaders and everyday people was an immense honor for them. Protestants and Catholics alike flocked by the thousands (culminating in a speech attended by 100,000 people in Dublin) to see and hear the President of the United States, who was there to advocate for change and peace.
While a majority of Irish on both sides of the conflict wanted change and peace in Northern Ireland, fringe elements within both communities wanted to uphold the status quo. They were the loudest and most violent, so they were successful, for decades, in prolonging the conflict. These people criticized the President’s visit, saying that he had no business being in Ireland, and that he certainly had no business interfering in the on-going negotiations.
However, as Clinton got out into the public, shook hands, hugged hundreds of people, shared stories, and even accepted a few beers (which the Secret Service quickly poured out), the Irish public were very warm and receptive to Clinton and his message of hope. The Irish flocked to Clinton by the droves, swarming him and enveloping him, wanting to touch him and be in his presence, as though they could be infused with his energy and power. In reality, it was the President who was feeding off their energy, driving him for nearly 48 hours with virtually no sleep. The Secret Service was alarmed by this obvious inability to maintain security, but the President was more than eager to drown himself in the sea of people. This was, as he put it, the happiest time of his life.
While in Ireland, President Clinton stopped at the Mackie factory in Belfast, Northern Ireland. It was owned by a Protestant, but he employed Catholics and Protestants. This place was, ostensibly, a symbol for peace and co-existence, but many of the employees either belonged to the IRA or for Protestant para-militaries in their time off. Before Clinton spoke, two children gave speeches that told of their suffering, but also called for peace. After young Cathy Hamill brought the room to tears with the story of her father’s murder, Clinton took the stage.
President Clinton, wagging his finger and clenching his fist, proclaimed, “only you can decide between division and unity, between hard lives and high hopes. You must say to those who would still use violence for political objectives: ‘You are the past, your day is over!'” This was a bold statement, considering that those people were in the room with him. It was also an obvious play on the famous IRA slogan, which said “Our day will come.” Clinton was challenging these people to turn their backs on the past and to move forward toward change, toward peace.
Not everyone was receptive to his message of change.
Cedric Wilson, a Protestant leader of the Northern Ireland Unionist party, shouted, “Never!”
As Clinton promised to “walk with” them if they chose to “walk the path of peace,” Wilson continued to heckle President Clinton: “Never!” “Those who showed the courage to break with the past,” Clinton said, “are entitled to their stake in the future.” Again, Wilson shouted, “Never!” Clinton pointed out Wilson, the heckler, who stood for the past, not the future of Ireland.
“Peace must be waged with a warrior’s resolve– bravely, proudly, and relentlessly– secure in the knowledge of the single greatest difference between war and peace; in peace everybody can win.” The President received a standing ovation that seemed to last forever. The people of Ireland were resolute: they were rejecting the Wilsons of the world.
In the end, due to the tireless efforts of Clinton, Mitchell, and the interested parties in Ireland, there was a negotiated peace in Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement (April 10, 1998) was not only supported by the Irish governments and the British government, but it was also supported by the Irish people through a referendum. The people made a
choice for peace, rather than protracted violence and conflict. Though in recent years groups in Ireland have tried to re-ignite the Troubles, the people have held fast to the principles of the Good Friday Agreement. Hillary Clinton has even appointed Declan Kelly to be the U.S. Special Envoy to Ireland, and she plans to visit Northern Ireland next month to review the peace process and to give a speech about the threat to peace posed by para-military groups in Ireland. This focus on Ireland is a break from the Bush administration, who largely ignored Ireland and left the U.S. participation in the peace process to the State Department. Had they continued Bill Clinton’s level of involvement, the situation in Ireland might be less perilous.
In the end, in a round-about sort of way, there are Wilsons in our world who shout “You lie!” or “Never!” to people who are interested in change, or in making progress. They are defenders of the status quo. As our country struggles to make sense of the health care bills in Congress (while continuing to be raped by insurance companies), we should all, at least, agree that we want to move forward– that we all want change and progress.
And we should all agree to ignore all the Wilsons of the world.
First and foremost, I am pro-life. Now, I know a lot of you probably think, “Oh, he’s one of these Ultra-right wing Christians who hate women.”
I am actually a fairly liberal guy who proudly voted for Hillary Clinton in the California primary. I love women. I’m married to one. But I also love life.
Where I differ from right-wing extremists, is the fact that I am actually pro-life. That means I am against abortion, but I am also against the death penalty, I am against needless war, I am for a healthy and clean environment, I am for raising the minimum wage, I am for Universal Health Care, and I am for equal quality education across our country. The economic and social justice that the Democratic party fights for actually reduces the number of abortions across the country. The right-wingers don’t support any of these pro-life measures. See, the right-wingers are simply anti-abortion. They are not pro-life.
Which brings me to my next point: we need to forget about Roe v. Wade. That single court ruling has had the most imapct upon our society since Brown v. Board of Education. I think most people, whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” (both ridiculous and stupid labels that mean nothing) can agree that nobody likes abortion. Is that some common ground we can all stand upon? I think it is.
From there, I argue that we should, as a nation, have better Sex Education in our schools. As an educator, I can see how pervasive sexuality is, even at the junior high level. That may be where we need to begin. Education is the best tool we have, so we ought to use it to fight unneccessary abortions from unwanted pregnancies. That means teaching our kids how to use contraceptives effectively. It also means emphasizing abstinence (I am by no means advocating abstinence only education). Prevention is crucial.
But schools can only do so much. Parents need to better educate their children in the home about sexuality. They need to be more firm and direct with their children with rules and boundaries. I see it all the time: parents allow their children to do whatever they want, whenever they want, at all hours of the day. This is certainly not true in all cases, but I do see this as the norm. We would have fewer Jamie Lynn Spears’ and Bristol Palins running around the country if parents took on the responsibility of parenthood.
I am Catholic. Abortion is an important issue for Catholics, as it is for many Protestants. I find myself, at times, arguing with Christians about whether or not to vote for a Democrat because the party supports abortion. My view is, an educated voter needs to weigh all the issues, not just a single issue that provokes an emotional response, and vote for the candidate that best represents the common interest. Republican candidates know that every election cycle there will be a core group of voters that simply ignores all the issues and votes primarily on the abortion issue. There are many good, honest, hardworking people who are perpetually in hard times who consistently vote for Republicans, even though it is not in their economic best interest. The Republican candidate, once elected, will go back to Washington and simply shelve the abortion issue until the next election, and then will proceed to pursue their actual agenda, which is to uphold the status quo the elites.
I think it is interesting, as I wrote earlier, to mention that abortion rates actually go down when we have Democratic administrations, as opposed to the increase in abortion rates under Republican administrations. Take, for example, according to the recent Guttmacher study, the fact that abortion rates went down more dramatically under President Clinton, going from 1.61 million abortions in 1990 to 1.31 abortions in 2000. Between 1992 and 1996, there was a 3.4% decline in abortion rates per year; between 1996 and 2000 there was a decline of 1.2% per year. Under President Bush, the number of abortions performed went from 1.31 million (in 2000) to 1.2 million (in 2005, the most recent data). That is a decline of only 0.9% per year. Why is that? It is because people who are in hard times, who have an unexpected pregnancy, are more likely to consider having an abortion than they are when they are in economic good times.
The findings of a study released in October 2007 also point to the need to abandon the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade. The study, conducted by the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York , found that abortion rates tend to be the same in countries where abortion is legal and where abortion is illegal. Virtually the same! The legality of abortion makes no difference! What is different, however, is the safety of abortions being performed and the mortality of the woman having the abortion. The study found that the women in countries where abortion was outlawed were drinking turpentine, bleach or tea made with livestock manure; inserting herbal preparations into the vagina or cervix; placing foreign bodies, such as a stick, coat hanger or chicken bone, into the uterus; or jumping from the top of stairs or a roof. The study found that there “Worldwide, an estimated five million women are hospitalized each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, such as hemorrhage and sepsis… [and] Complications due to unsafe abortion procedures account for an estimated 13% of maternal deaths worldwide, or 67,000 per year.” How is this pro-life? It is not.
Again, I turn back to the need for better sex education, both in the schools and at home, with a particular emphasis on abstinence. That said, contraceptive use also needs to be taught because not every individual is going to abide by the fact that abstinence is the only 100% way to avoid unwanted pregnancies or STD’s (though STD’s are an entirely different conversation for another day). Sex Ed cannot be a one size fits all program that abides only to religious considerations (abstinence only); instead, this needs to be a secular program that promotes good health for individuals as well as smart family planning for future generations. Again, and this is crucial, prevention is the best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and abortions that result thereof.
And, finally, I would like to also express my deep belief that America can and will overcome this issue. There is common ground between both sides of the issue. If both sides can come together and work to create social and economic conditions that have been proven to reduce the number of abortions, then we can go a long way to reaching that goal of zero abortions (as optimistic that number may be). For this to work, we also need to support mothers who do opt to keep their child, rather than undergo an abortion. We also need to support our adoption agencies and cut a lot of the red tape that prevent or slow down the adoption process. In addition to that, we should support those families that decide to adopt children, as they are performing an admirable and honorable service to the children of our nation. As this election winds down, I hope that people start to consider an array of issues before making their decisions. If they do that, I am confident Barack Obama will be the man they elect to be the next President of the United States of America.
I have encountered many people in my relatively conservative town who have read and praised Jerome Corsi’s latest book The Obama Nation. Now, Jerome Corsi gained some level of notoriety in 2004 for his Swift Boat attack ads and his book Unfit for Command, aimed to undermine Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. The bulk of “facts” in that book were later discredited by the media, though not before they were accepted as truth by much of the American public (who have a history of absorbing repititious progpaganda like a sponge). Corsi has espoused such conspiracy theories as the 9/11 theory that the government was involved in bringing down the towers, and another theory stating that the government is trying to form a North American Union government. He also hates Muslims and, apparently, Barack Obama.
His latest book The Obama Nation, is a collection of internet rumors designed to portray Obama as a radical leftist Muslim intent on destroying our country from within.
I found this wonderful informational packet through the Obama website that I thought I would share. I’m going to be printing it out and sharing it with people I come across in order to defend against the disgusting smear machine.
I will say this, however: some of the Obama campaign’s own comments are frightening, in as much as they indicate a continuation of many of Bush’s policies. For instance, Obama’s campaign insists that he will not “use force as a last resort,” as though that is comforting. In other words, he is open to a unilateral pre-emptive attack, much in the same way Bush is (and Pres. Clinton was, to be fair). Unilateral pre-emptive invasion is not only un-American, but it also is illegal according to international law. So, that is disturbing to me.
Furthermore, they also have proposed that the defense budget be increased dramatically. Yipee! Why? To kill more terrorists. This tells me that Obama will be more of the same, as well, though McCain would be significantly worse. To win this war, we have to win hearts and minds. This strategy Obama has laid out has been executed by the Bush administration for 7 years and it has only increased terrorism. I expect it will increase under an Obama administration.
Lastly, Obama has made it clear that he has little to no respect for the Palestinian people and supports their continued oppression by Israel. This unwavering and unconditional support for Israel is at the heart of anti-American sentiment in the region. Obama supports the construction of settlements on Palestinian lands and he also rejects any plan to divide Jerusalem, two sticking points for the Palestinian people. Clearly, Obama, again, is pursuing a “more of the same” policy that has existed for 60 years and has resulted in terrorist attacks against our nation.
But at least Obama is honest and open about those policies. Though I strongly disagree with him in those areas, I still believe he is a candidate worth supporting and worth defending.
Here it is! Enjoy!
UNFIT FOR PUBLICATION
the bush/cheney attack machine
UNFIT FOR PUBLICATION: Setting the Record Straight on the Lies in Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation”
Once again, bigoted fringe author Jerome Corsi is trying to make money off of an
election, spinning garbage as journalism and relying on the right-wing echo chamber to
pump up sales. Make no mistake: “The Obama Nation” is nothing but rehashed lies.
The allegations: rehashed lies
Corsi’s falsehoods about Barack Obama have been discredited by numerous news
organizations, which have questioned his “scholarship,” his conclusions, and his
ideological bent. This report will take you through the allegations point by point. Despite
Corsi’s high opinion of his own scholarly abilities—he childishly touts the number of
footnotes it contains, for example—he gets many of even the most basic facts wrong, like
the year the Obamas got married.
As you might expect from the book’s shoddy foundation, many of its claims are also
completely false. The Obama’s never gave a million dollars to a Kenyan politician.
Obama has no secret plan to destroy the military. Obama has regularly shared many of
the facts about his family that Corsi claims he has covered up.
The author: a discredited, fringe bigot
Of course, the lies in “The Obama Nation” almost pale in comparison to the bizarre,
conspiratorial views that Jerome Corsi has advocated in his broader work. He believes
that President Bush is trying to merge the United states with Mexico and Canada. He
believes that there is a literally unending supply of oil beneath the ground. And in
perhaps the gravest sign that his views can’t be trusted, he alleges a government cover-up
of the 9/11 attacks and denies that airplanes were to blame for the towers’ collapse.
And it doesn’t stop there. Corsi has penned a litany of bigoted, hateful comments—
crossing the line so thoroughly that even the right-wing operatives behind Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth disavowed him. This is a man who smears the Catholic Church, calls
the Pope “senile,” and regularly demeans public servants in vile sexual and racial terms.
In short, his record of attacks is disgusting and false, and so is this book.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Reviews Are In! …………………………………………………….. 3
Factual Inaccuracies In Corsi’s Book ……………………………………….. 5
Consider The Source: Corsi Holds Widely Discredited Beliefs … 34
Consider The Source: Corsi Is A Bigot …………………………………… 37
Offensive Language In Corsi’s Book ………………………………………. 39
THE REVIEWS ARE IN!
Corsi’s falsehoods about Barack Obama have been discredited by numerous news organizations, which have questioned his “scholarship,” his conclusions, and his ideological bent.
New York Times: Several Corsi Accusations Are “Unsubstantiated, Misleading Or Inaccurate.” The New York Times reported, “Several of the book’s accusations, in fact, are unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate.” [New York Times, 8/13/08]
Los Angeles Times: “Being No. 1 Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Being Accurate.” The Los Angeles Times reported, “The book lashes out at Barack Obama and alleges, among other things, that the politician has a secret radical Islamic agenda. But being No. 1 doesn’t necessarily mean being accurate. Obama is a Christian.” [Los
Angeles Times, 8/12/08]
Politico: “Outrageous Assertions and Fringe Theories…Have Hurt His Credibility on the Right as Well.” “[H]is outrageous assertions and fringe theories — which include allegations that President Bush worked to eliminate the borders with Mexico and Canada and the assertion that Kerry is a Communist — have hurt his credibility on the right, as well. … On the blog FreeRepublic.com, Corsi wrote that pedophilia ‘is OK with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press,’ that ‘RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are
Women-Haters.’” [Politico, 8/13/08]
Washington Post: Book “Lacks Major Revelations… Parts Of The Book Have Also Been Disproved By The Mainstream Media.” “Corsi’s ‘The Obama Nation’ lacks major revelations and has been dismissed by Obama’s campaign as a series of lies from a serial liar. Parts of the book have also been disproved by the mainstream media. In 2004, Corsi co-wrote ‘Unfit for Command,’ in which Swift boat veterans criticized Sen. John F. Kerry’s Vietnam War record. That book was also widely disproved…Nevertheless, Corsi’s book about Obama will debut as a No. 1 New York Times bestseller.” [Washington Post, 8/14/08]
Politico: “Factually Disputed New Book” Written By An Author With A “Trail Of Wild Theories, Vitriol And Dogma That Have Called Into Question His Credibility.” “The folks behind ‘The Obama Nation,’ the wildly successful but factually disputed new book trashing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, are casting it as a scholarly, thoroughly researched work. But its author has left a trail of wild theories, vitriol and dogma that have called into question his credibility.” [Politico, 8/13/08]
Time’s Klein: The Book is “Trash,” “Poisonous Crap.” Joe Klein wrote for Time, “I heard about Jerome Corsi’s book a few weeks ago from my mother, who said that her great fear–that Barack Obama has covert Islamic associations–had been confirmed by a new book. I told her not to worry, that many reputable people had looked into the matter and Obama was more likely to be spotted in Whole Foods than praying in a mosque. (Since my mother has never been to Whole Foods, so she didn’t quite get my wry allusion.) ‘I hope so,’ she said, dubiously. So we know the market for trash is there, and not so far from home. And we know, that Mary
Matalin, who appears regularly on mainstream media programs like Meet the Press called the Corsi book in the New York Times today: ‘a piece of scholarship, and a good one at that.’ But hey, Mary stands to make big bucks off this scholarship, which I’m sure was submitted for peer review and otherwise held to the highest editorial standards–and I’m sure her reputation and mediagenicity won’t be damaged by this poisonous crap, and we’re all friends here, aren’t we? And, yknow, they say politics ain’t beanbag…and it’s all in the game to
tell innocent, well-intentioned people that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim or that John Kerry wasn’t really a hero in Vietnam. Or, as George W. Bush, once told a rightly outraged John McCain–whose wife and daughter Bush’s minions had smeared—’It’s just politics.’”
New Republic: “Frequently Fictitious” Book From “Propagandist And Renowned Liar.” “From today’s NYT piece on the vile and frequently fictitious anti-Obama book just released by swift-boat propagandist and renowned liar Jerome Corsi…” [New Republic, 8/13/08]
Martin: Corsi’s Book “Regardless Of Accuracy, Is What Many On The Right Want To Believe About
Obama.” Jonathan Martin wrote, “But Corsi delved into the drug-and-Muslim fever swamps, which,
regardless of accuracy, is what many on the right want to believe about Obama.” [Politico, 8/13/08]
FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN CORSI’S BOOK
Corsi’s book is rife with inaccuracies. He claims to have 700 footnotes and yet he gets some of the most basic facts about Barack Obama wrong—like the year the Obamas were married. Corsi writes throughout his book that Obama has refused to acknowledge details about his life, but a quick search through Obama’s two thorough books shows that, despite Corsi’s claims, Obama does in fact talk about his sister’s birth and did dedicate “Dreams from My Father” to his family, for example. But Corsi makes more troubling inaccurate claims as well, such as saying that Obama gave a million dollars to a Kenyan politician, when numerous outlets have shown that to be a lie. And Corsi’s claims that Obama would leave the country unsafe by destroying the military are spurious and untrue. While these are certainly not all the inaccuracies in the book, they include some important points we thought should be pointed out.
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
Obama: “After Our Engagement, I Took Michelle To Kenya…” Obama wrote in Dreams, “After our
engagement, I took Michelle to Kenya to meet the other half of my family. She was an immediate success there as well, in part because the number of Luo words in her vocabulary very soon surpassed mine. We had a fine time in Alego, helping Auma on a film project of hers, listening to more of Granny’s stories, meeting relatives I’d missed the first time around.” [Dreams, p 439]
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”
Obama Wrote About His Father’s Drinking Throughout Dreams from My Father. Obama writes Auma
said, “At the time, I just saw that life at home became very difficult. The Old Man never spoke to Roy or myself except to scold us. He would come home very late, drunk, and I could hear him shouting at Ruth, telling her to cook him food. Ruth became very bitter at how the Old Man had changed… Finally Roy just left. He just stopped coming home and started living with different people. So I was left alone with the Old Man. Sometimes I would stay up half the night, waiting to hear him come through the door, worrying that something terrible had
happened. Then he would stagger in drunk and come into my room and wake me because he wanted company or something to eat. He would talk about how unhappy he was and how he had been betrayed. I would be so sleepy, I wouldn’t understand anything he was saying. Secretly, I began to wish that he would just stay out one night and never come back.” [p 216-217] Obama Wrote He Asked Himself If His Father Was “A Bitter Drunk.” “Now, as I sat in the glow of a single light bulb, rocking slightly on a hard-backed chair, that image had suddenly vanished. Replaced by . . . what? A bitter drunk? An abusive husband? A defeated, lonely bureaucrat? To think that all my life I had been wrestling with nothing more than a ghost!” [p 220]
Obama Wrote His Father’s First Wife Was Kezia, Mother To Four of His Children. Obama’s father’s wife was Kezia Obama. Before he left Kenya, he fathered Auma and Roy with Kezia. After he had returned to Kenya years later, she also gave birth to Bernard and Abo. [Africa News, 8/15/04; Dreams from my Father, p 316, p 335] Obama Wrote His Mother Said There Was No Legal Documentation That Could Show a Divorce From His First Wife. In Dreams From my Father, Obama writes that his mother Ann Dunham said, “your father’s first wife…he had told me they were separated, but it was a village wedding, so there was no legal document that could show a divorce.” [Dreams from my Father, p 126] Obama Writes That His Father’s Third Wife Refused To Life With His First Wife. In Dreams from my Father, Obama writes that one of his relatives said, “once Barack [Sr.] agreed to marry Ruth, she could not accept the idea of his having Kezia as a second wife.” Ruth was the mother to Mark and David. [Dreams frommy Father, p 213, p 423]
Obama Wrote Obama Sr. Fathered His Last Child With an Unnamed Woman. Obama writes that before
he died, Obama Sr. “had just fathered another son, George, with a young woman he was living with.” Obama writes that his sister Auma said, “The Old Man’s last girlfriend, the mother of our baby brother, George— she wanted everything.” [Dreams from my Father, p 265-266, p 218]
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
TIME Reported On Obama’s Parents’ Divorce Records. TIME reported, “On Feb. 2, 1961, several months after they met, Obama’s parents got married in Maui, according to divorce records.” [TIME, 4/9/08]
• Corsi Cites Time Story To Say “Divorce Papers Confirm…” Corsi wrote, “Other sources say
divorce papers confirm that a civil ceremony was held on Maui, on February 2, 1961, when Ann was three months pregnant with Obama.” Corsi cites the April 9th, 2008 Time story for his reference to Obama’s parents’ wedding. [p. 44] Corsi “Baselessly” Suggests That Barack Obama Sr. Divorced Ann Dunham “Following The Prescripts Of Islamic Sharia Law.” “Corsi baselessly suggests that Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., may have divorced his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, ‘following the prescripts of Islamic sharia law.’ Corsi’s sole source for this statement is a blogger who made the claim in a March 20 post, which featured the false headline, “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WAS MUSLIM FOR 31 YEARS” and misstated Obama’s mother’s name as ‘Shirley Ann.’ The blogger Corsi cited, ‘Majalah Bulanan Kumunitas Indonesia Di Edmonton,’ provided no substantiation for the claim that ‘the senior Obama divorced Dunham according to Sharia law.’” [Media Matters, 8/4/08]
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
Obama: “My Mother And Lolo Would Remain Cordial Through The Birth Of My Sister, Maya…”
Obama wrote, “Such arguments were rare, though; my mother and Lolo would remain cordial through the birth of my sister, Maya, through the separation and eventual divorce, up until the last time I saw Lolo, ten years later, when my mother helped him travel to Los Angeles to treat a liver ailment that would kill him at the age of fifty-one.” [p 47] Corsi “Falsely” Claims That Obama Did Not Mention The Birth Of His Sister In Dreams. “Corsi falsely
claims that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, during the chapter in Dreams in which he discusses his time living in Indonesia. Corsi writes: In the midst of the personal drama being played against the background of this Indonesian turmoil, on August 15, 1970, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, was born to his mother and stepfather. Obama devotes the entire second chapter of his autobiography to his time
in Indonesia, but remarkably, he makes no reference to Maya’s birth [Page 48]. In fact, on Page 47 of Dreams, in the chapter discussing his time in Indonesia, Obama writes that ‘my mother and Lolo would remain cordial through the birth of my sister, Maya.’” [Media Matters, 8/4/08]
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
Obama Wrote That He Owed “The Deepest Gratitude” And “Dedicated” His Book To “My Mother, My
Grandparents, My Siblings, Stretched Across Oceans And Continents.” “It is to my family, though — my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents — that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book. Without their constant love and support, without their willingness to let me sing their song and their toleration of the occasional wrong note, I could never have hoped to finish. If nothing else, I hope that the love and respect I feel for them shines through on every page.” [Dreams From My Father, p
LIE: “According to the blog, his religion was listed as Islam.” [p 53]
REALITY: RELIGION OF THE FATHER WAS WHAT WAS LISTED
Obama’s Parents Registered Obama As A Muslim For “Convenience” Because It Was The “Common
Practice…To List The Father’s Faith.” Obama’s stepfather was nominally Muslim. ‘At the public school, which welcomed pupils of various faiths, Obama’s parents registered him as ‘Muslim’ only for convenience. The Indonesian Communist Party had just been destroyed, and atheistic Marxism outlawed. Pupils were required to state an affiliation with a major world religion. When enrolling a child, the common practice was to list the father’s faith.’” [Mercury News, 2/1/2007] Obama Was Registered As The Religion Of His Stepfather. Israella Dharmawan said Obama “was registered as a Muslim because his father, Lolo Soetoro, was Muslim.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/16/07]
LIE: Zulfan “Adi said neighborhood Muslims worshipped in a nearby house. When the muezzin
sounded the call to prayer, Adi remembered seeing Lolo and Barry walk together to the makeshift mosque.” [p 56]
REALITY: ADI “WAS NOT CERTAIN” WHEN PRESSED ABOUT HIS RECOLLECTIONS
Former Classmate Who Said Obama Attended Services With Lolo Soetoro “Told The Tribune He Was
Not Certain About That When Pressed About His Recollections.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Zulfan Adi, a former neighborhood playmate of Obama’s who has been cited in news reports as saying Obama regularly attended Friday prayers with Soetoro, told the Tribune he was not certain about that when pressed about his recollections. He only knew Obama for a few months, during 1970, when his family moved to the neighborhood.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/25/07]
LIE: “Obama always acknowledged his stepfather was Muslim, though he did his best to downplay
Islam as an important force in his stepfather’s life.” [p 58]
REALITY: LOLO WAS A NOMINAL MUSLIM
Lolo Soetoro Was A “Nominal Muslim” Who Enjoyed Bacon. “The grandparents who helped raise Mr.
Obama were nonpracticing Baptists and Methodists. His mother was an anthropologist who collected religious texts the way others picked up tribal masks, teaching her children the inspirational power of the common narratives and heroes. His mother’s tutelage took place mostly in Indonesia, in the household of Mr. Obama’s stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, a nominal Muslim who hung prayer beads over his bed but enjoyed bacon, which Islam forbids.” [New York Times, 4/3/07]
Obama: Lolo Soetoro “Followed A Brand Of Islam That Could Make Room For The Remnants” Of
Other Faiths. Obama wrote, “Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths.” [Dreams, p. 37]
LIE: “As a vice president, Madelyn Dunham would have earned enough to be well off, even if not
rich.” [p 71]
REALITY: DUNHAMS LIVED MODESTLY
Obama’s Grandparents Rented A Two Bedroom Apartment In Honolulu. The Chicago Tribune reported,
“At age 11, Obama was sent to Hawaii to live with his grandparents. They lived in a modest two-bedroom Honolulu apartment in order to save money for Obama’s tuition to attend the Punahou Academy, an elite private school.” [Chicago Tribune, 10/22/2004]
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 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 US Senate?” [p 77]
REALITY: OBAMA HAS MADE CLEAR REPEATEDLY THAT HE STOPPED USING MARIJUANA IN COLLEGE, WHICH PEERS HAVE AFFIRMED
Obama Said He Inhaled Pot, But Said He Hadn’t Done “Anything” Since He Was 20. “When I was in high school, I tried pot,” said Obama. “And I won’t say that I didn’t inhale. I did inhale.” He said some of the behavior extended to college. “By the time I was 20, I don’t think I indulged again,” he said. The graduate of Harvard Law School also admits there was a time “I drank six-packs of beer in a single night.” Any other illegal drugs? “I haven’t done anything since I was 20 years old,” he said. “That’ll suffice.” [State Journal-Register](Springfield, IL), 11/9/03] Scott: In New York, Obama “Stopped Getting High.” Janny Scott wrote in the New York Times, “Senator Obama, an Illinois Democrat now seeking the presidency, suggests in his book that his years in New York were a pivotal period: He ran three miles a day, buckled down to work and “stopped getting high,” which he says he had started doing in high school.” [New York Times, 10/30/07]
Obama’s Roommate In New York Said He Refused Offers Of Drugs. The AP reported, “While Obama
has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine during high school in Hawaii, he writes in the memoir that he stopped using soon after his arrival in New York. His roommate had no such scruples. But Siddiqi says that during their time together here, Obama always refused his offers of drugs.” [AP, 5/15/08]
Smith: “I Invested A Fair Amount Of Time In An Obama-In-New York Piece…The Conclusion May
Be That Obama’s New York Life Was Much Less Interesting That A Few Lines In His Book
Suggest.” Ben Smith wrote, “I invested a fair amount of time in an Obama-in-New-York piece earlier this year, and eventually gave up and wrote a short blog item. (I didn’t think “Impressive, charismatic pol was once impressive, charismatic young man” made much of a story.) I think the conclusion may be that Obama’s New York life was much less interesting than a few lines in his book suggest.” [Politico, 11/6/07]
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 sotraumatic Obama still mentions it today.” [p 87]
REALITY: OBAMA MEMOIR CHARACTERIZED FRANK DAVIS MARSHALL AS A FIGURE FROM HIS YOUTH WHO “FELL SHORT” AND WHOSE VIEW OF RACE WAS “INCURABLE”
Obama Wrote Of Frank As Someone Who “Fell Short” Of The “Lofty Standards” Of “Martin And Malcolm, Dubois And Mandela.” “Yes, I’d seen weakness in other men—Gramps and his disappointments, Lolo and his compromise. But these men had become object lessons for me, men I might love but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela. And if later I saw that the black men I knew— Frank or Ray or Will or Rafiq— fell short of such lofty standards; if I had learned to respect these men for the struggles they went through,
recognizing them as my own—my father’s voice had nevertheless remained untainted, inspiring, rebuking, granting or withholding approval. You do not work hard enough, Barry. You must help in your people’s struggle. Wake up, black man!” [Dreams From My Father, Pg. 96] Obama Wrote That “The Relationship Between Black And White, The Meaning Of Escape, Would Never Be Quite The Same For Me As It Had Been For Frank, Or For The Old Man, Or Even For Roy.”
“The relationship between black and white, the meaning of escape, would never be quite the same for me as it had been for Frank, or for the Old Man, or even for Roy.” [Dreams From My Father, Pg. 277] Obama Recounted Frank’s Diatribe About What Would Happen To Him In College And Then Described Frank As “Incurable” And Living In The “Sixties Time Warp That Hawaii Had Created.” ““What had Frank called college? An advanced degree in compromise. I thought back to the last time I had seen the old poet, a few days before I left Hawaii. We had made small talk for a while; he complained about his feet, the corns and bone spurs that he insisted were a direct result of trying to force African feet into European shoes. Finally he had asked me what it was that I expected to get out of college. I told him I didn’t know. He shook his big, hoary head…’Leaving your race at the door,” he said. “Leaving your people behind.” He studied me over the top of his reading glasses. “Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained. They’ll train you to want what you don’t need. They’ll train you to manipulate words so they don’t mean anything anymore. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know. They’ll train
you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit. They’ll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy dinners, and tell you you’re a credit to your race. Until you want to actually start running things, and then they’ll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the same…It made me smile, thinking back on
Frank and his old Black Power, dashiki self. In some ways he was as incurable as my mother, as certain in his faith, living in the same sixties time warp that Hawaii had created.” [Dreams From My Father, Pg. 96-97]
Davis: “I Cannot Support The African American Extremist Postulate That All White Are Our Enemies. Unless You Have Allowed Yourself To Become Completely Dehumanized By American Racism, You Value And Retain Your Proven Friends, No Matter What Their Color.” An article on Frank Marshall Davis wrote, “Although involvement with the labor movement was Davis’s opportunity to work for better wages and conditions for both African Americans and whites, perhaps most significant about this period in Chicago was that Davis and other African American intellectuals had a chance to mix freely in interracial situations, thereby opening doors for those who came after. Davis understood more than ever that the problems in America caused by class inequities were intricately woven with racial inequities. The Chicago Renaissance was a period when it was possible for interracial friendships to form and new levels of communication to occur.
‘I felt equal to my white peers. Around them I could not sniff the offensive odor of condescension. You see, I like people despite being basically a loner, but experience had taught me never to immediately trust anybody white … and in a determined effort to become cosmopolitan, I participated in all… I still have warm personal feelings for those with whom I worked. This is a big reason why I cannot support the African American extremist postulate that all whites are our enemies… Unless you have allowed yourself to become completely dehumanized by American racism, you value and retain your proven friends, no matter what their color (1992, 248-249).’” [Western Journal of Black Studies, 12/22/02]
LIE: “Despite all they had done for him, his grandparents were still ‘white folks’ and ‘white folks’ are racists.” [p 88]
REALITY: OBAMA SAID CALLING HIS GRANDPARENTS “WHITE FOLKS” WOULDN’T RESONATE WITH HIM
Obama Said That The Phrase “White Folks” Did Not Resonate With Him, Because Of His Love For His Mother And Grandparents. Obama wrote, “White folks. The term itself was uncomfortable in my mouth at first; I felt like a non-native speaker tripping over a difficult phrase. Sometimes I would find myself talking to Ray about white folks this or white folks that, and I would suddenly remember my mother’s smile, and the words that I spoke would seem awkward and false. 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.” [Dreams, p. 81 – 82]
LIE: “The Obama campaign denied the photo [of him in Somali clothing] proves any connection
between Obama and Islam.” [p 93]
REALITY: SOMALI OUTFIT HAD “NO RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE”
The Somali Clothes Obama Was Wearing Are The Traditional Clothes Nomadic People In Somalia Wear And Have No Religious Significance Whatsoever. Yusuf Garaad Omar, head of the BBC’s Somali Service wrote, “These are the normal clothes that nomadic people wear. The head turban is especially used by elderly people as a suggestion of respect. It is something that has no meaning whatsoever in Somalia culture. If you see someone dressed like that in Somalia, you think it is a nomadic person – that is all. There is no religious significance to it whatsoever. It is mainly the nomadic people who use it. Some of them are religious, some are
not. It is simply a tradition of the place where they are from. In this particular place, Wajir in north-east Kenya, the community is majority ethnic Somali. They have a council for Peace and Development, and when they get delegates they dress them as a nomadic person.” [BBC News, 2/26/08]
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.” [p 103]
REALITY: OBAMA WAS IMPARTIAL IN KENYAN POLITICS
Obama Did Not Take Sides, Said That Each Leader Should Go To Negotiations “Unconditionally.”
“Obama said President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga should sit down and talk
‘unconditionally,’ and he urged them to ‘welcome the assistance if your concerned friends.’ Aides to Obama said he gave the statement after consulting with U.S. Ambassador Mike Rannenberger, at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. The address was broadcast live during the morning commute in Kenya on Capital FM Radio in Nairobi.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/29/08]
Awiti: Raila Odinga Was Using Obama To Add Some Political Points And It Should Be Totally
Disregarded. “Alex Awiti, a Kenyan postdoctoral fellow at Columbia University, says you have to consider the context of when Odinga was speaking, that being in the middle of a political crisis. ‘Raila Odinga was groping all over the place, trying to find some political legitimacy to get on a high pedestal to claim leadership and using Obama was basically going to add some political points,’ said Awiti, who lived in Kenya until three years ago. ‘This is very opportunistic and it should be totally disregarded.’” [Politifact]
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.” [p 103]
REALITY: OBAMA CANNOT CLAIM KENYAN CITIZENSHIP
Kenya Does Not Allow Dual Citizenship Applications for People Over 21 Years of Age. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management writes of Kenya, “DUAL CITIZENSHIP: Not recognized except for persons under 21 years old.” The Kenyan Constitution writes, “A person who, but for the proviso to section 87 (1), would be a citizen of Kenya by virtue of that subsection shall be entitled, upon making application before the specified date in such manner as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament, to be registered as a citizen of Kenya:
Provided that a person who has not attained the age of twenty-one years (other than a woman who is or has been married) may not himself make an application under this subsection, but an application may be made on his behalf by his parent or guardian.” [U.S. Office of Personnel Management; Kenyan Constitution] Even if Obama Had Applied for Dual Citizenship Before He Was 21—Which He Did Not—It Would Have Expired. ”A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some other country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of
allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya, made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.” [Kenyan Constitution]
LIE: “Even as Kenya entered this postelection violence, Senator Obama has continued to insert
himself into Kenyan politics.” [p 104]
REALITY: SECRETARY RICE ASKED OBAMA TO TAPE A RADIO ADDRESS
Klein Praised Obama For Finding “The Time To Do Some Diplomatic Scut-Work” For Kenya. Joe Klein wrote, “One of the more extraordinary stories of the Obama campaign has been playing out behind the scenes over the past week as the candidate has been working on a daily basis to try to calm things down in his father’s homeland and his grandmother’s home, Kenya, where a contested election has led to riots. On January 1, two days before the Iowa caucuses, Obama left a message for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. According to Robert Gibbs, Obama’s Communications Director, Rice called back ‘as we were driving from Sioux City to Council Bluffs on January 1. They talked about the situation and Rice asked Obama to tape a Voice of America message calling for calm.’…I haven’t been able to talk to Obama directly about this–he is sort of busy right now–but it does seem noteworthy that, in the midst of the most amazing week of his life, Barack Obama has found the time to do a some diplomatic scut-work. I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of this sort of thing if he wins the nomination and is elected President.” [TIME, 1/7/08]
Obama Called On The Opposition To “Turn Away From The Path Of Mass Protest And Violence.”
Obama said, “The rule of law and the rights of the Kenyan people, including freedom of the media and the freedom of peaceful assembly, must be restored…The opposition must turn away from the path of mass protest and violence in seeking participation in government.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/29/08]
Obama Did Not Take Sides, Said That Each Leader Should Go To Negotiations “Unconditionally.”
Obama said President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga should sit down and talk
‘unconditionally,’ and he urged them to ‘welcome the assistance if your concerned friends.’ Aides to Obama said he gave the statement after consulting with U.S. Ambassador Mike Rannenberger, at the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. The address was broadcast live during the morning commute in Kenya on Capital FM Radio in Nairobi.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/29/08]
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.” [pp 110-111]
REALITY: NO ONE WITH “A SHRED OF INTEGRITY” OR INTELLIGENCE WOULD CALL OBAMA SR A COMMUNIST BASED ON HIS ACADEMIC WORK
Noam Scheiber: “No One With More Than Well-Below-Average Intelligence Or A Shred Of Integrity”
Could Conclude From Reading Obama Sr.’s Paper That He “Was An Ardent Communist.” “According
to the development expert Ben Smith and Jeffrey Ressner consulted for their Politico piece, the paper is an artifact of an esoteric debate about the right way to implement a set of Kenyan economic reforms back in 1965– and absolutely can’t be understood outside of the historical/economic/political context in which it was written. In other words, no one with more than well-below-average intelligence or a shred of integrity would conclude from it that Obama Sr. was an ardent Communist. And no one who met a quarter of those criteria would make
the additional, preposterous leap between this paper and the worldview of Barack Obama the presidential candidate. Sadly, that doesn’t appear to include the right-wing hacks spreading this nonsense. I await the forthcoming Bill Kristol column…” [TNR, 4/15/08]
Kenya Expert, Economist And UCLA Visiting Professor Dr. Omwami Said That Obama Sr.’s
Projections And Critiques Are So Spot On That He Plans On Assigning The Paper In His Future Classes. “But Kenya expert Dr. Raymond Omwami, an economist and UCLA visiting professor from the University of Helsinki who has also worked at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, said Obama Sr. could not be considered a socialist himself based solely on the material in his bylined piece. Omwami points out Obama Sr.’s paper was primarily a harsh critique of the controversial 1965 government document known as the “Sessional Paper No. 10.” Sessional Paper No. 10 rejected classic Karl Marx philosophies then embraced by the Soviet Union and some European countries, calling instead for a new type of socialism to be used specifically in Africa… Obama Sr.’s projections and critiques are so spot on, says Omwami, that he plans on assigning the paper to his classes in the future.” [Politico, 4/15/08]
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…” [pp 115-116]
REALITY: OBAMA NEVER CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO ODINGA
Politifact: The Claim That Obama Contributed $1 Million To Odinga “Are As Baseless As Anything
You’ve Read From An Anonymous Blogger” And Earned A Rating Of “Pants On Fire” Wrong. “A chain
e-mail that originates with a letter from American missionaries working in Kenya warns about Sen. Barack Obama’s ties to Kenya and its opposition party, encouraging readers ‘not to be taken in by those that are promoting him.’ Among the many allegations is one about Obama’s ties to Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga: ‘Obama under ‘friends of Obama’ gave almost a million dollars to the (Kenya) opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany.’ The e-mail reads like a bad game of ‘telephone,’ its claims drawn from assorted people and sources that have been stitched
together. And yet, because it is signed by real people, who have a life in Africa, it somehow carries more credence than your average blog posting — and it’s spreading rapidly. But even with the credibility of a real author, the claims in this e-mail are as baseless as anything you’ve read from an anonymous blogger.” [Politifact]
Obama Never Gave Money To Prime Minister Odinga. “Not to mention, the Obama campaign says the
senator never gave money to Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga. And Salim Lone, spokesman for Odinga whom we spoke with in Kenya, confirms that. ‘That is absolutely ridiculous,’ Lone said in an interview with PolitiFact. ‘Mr. Obama did not donate a single cent to Mr. Odinga’s campaign.’ Just to be certain, we did an analysis of Federal Election Commission reports of disbursements from Obama’s principal presidential campaign committee, Obama for America, during the 2008 election cycle. We searched for ‘Kenya,’ ‘Odinga’ and ‘ODM,’ (the Orange Democratic Movement) the latter being Odinga’s political party, and came up with no matches.” [Politifact]
There Is No “Friends Of Senator BO” PAC. ”On the legible version, you can see the underlined entry says, ‘Friends of Senator BO,’ presumably Barack Obama. Only, there is no political action committee named Friends of Senator BO or Friends of Barack Obama. So says Obama’s campaign. And a search of the Federal Election Commission Web site and Opensecrets.org, the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics, pulls up neither. In fact, there’s no PAC name even close.” [Politifact]
LIE: “No one in Obama’s paternal or maternal family had ever resided in Chicago.” [p 123]
REALITY: OBAMA’S GREAT UNCLE LIVED IN CHICAGO
Obama’s Great-Uncle Charlie Payne Left Kansas For The Army And Returned For College; Payne
Attended Graduate School At The University Of Chicago And Stayed, Retiring As The Assistant Director Of Their Library. The AP reported, “During the war, home was Augusta, a small town in central Kansas. Payne had enlisted in 1943 along with most of his high school graduating class. He served in a mortar squad, then a communications squad rigging telephone lines. After the war, Payne went to college in Kansas on the GI Bill and then to graduate school at the University of Chicago, where Obama would later lecture on constitutional law. He later became interested in computers and how they could be used in libraries. He retired at age 70 as assistant director of the University of Chicago’s library.” [AP, 7/24/08]
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 Obama does not mention in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father.” [p 129]
REALITY: OBAMA DID MENTION HIS JOB IN DREAMS
Obama Wrote About His Job At City College In Dreams. Obama wrote, “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.” [Dreams, p 139]
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.” [p 130]
REALITY: KELLMAN WAS IN NEW YORK VISITING FAMILY AND SET UP AN INTERVIEW WITH OBAMA
Kellman “Had Plans To Visit Family In New York Anyway, So He Called Obama And Set Up An
Interview.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Kellman had plans to visit family in New York anyway, so he called Obama and set up an interview. They met at a coffee shop on the Upper West Side, and Kellman quickly began testing Obama with pointed questions…Kellman hired Obama on the spot for roughly $10,000 a year. He threw in an extra $2,000 so Obama could buy that beater of a Honda and get moved. A month later he was at a South Side church being introduced to leaders of CCRC’s Chicago branch, which soon would be spun off into the Developing Communities Project.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/30/07]
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.” [p 135]
REALITY: JOHNSON’S ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN DISPUTED AND SHE HAS TOLD
Chicago Tribune: “Johnson’s Allegations Were Disputed By Several Members Of DCP.” The Chicago
Tribune reported, “But Hazel Johnson, a longtime Altgeld resident, recently accused Obama of stealing credit for the work of the environmental group she runs. ‘He wants to make himself look good,’ said Johnson, who claimed Obama assisted her group on other problems with the CHA but not the asbestos issue. Johnson’s allegations were disputed by several members of DCP, who said Obama was in the thick of the asbestos protests and they were right alongside. The only inaccuracy in the book, Kellman said: It was Obama himself who discovered the problem and not a DCP member.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/30/07]
Chicago Sun-Times: “Johnson Told Fornek A Different Version Of The Events In 2004.” The Chicago Sun-Times reported, “The Times article quotes Altgeld resident and community activist Hazel Johnson. My colleague, Sun-Times political writer Scott Fornek, interviewed her in 2004 and again on Monday. Fornek reports that Johnson, 72, objects to Obama taking credit for helping force the CHA to remove asbestos at Altgeld Gardens. Johnson has not read Obama’s book. She said he played no role in the asbestos-removal fight. She said he did help get ‘angel hair,’ another type of dangerous insulation, removed from attics in the complex’s
row houses — and worked on public transportation issues and helped get a library built. ‘He was not with us on the asbestos,’ she said. But Johnson told Fornek a different version of the events in 2004 during an interview for a profile on Obama during that year’s U.S. Senate race. She said Obama worked on the asbestos removal after the angel hair project. ‘We worked together.’ Another colleague, Sun-Times reporter Tim Novak, talked to Cheryl Jackson, her daughter. She said her mother was exploited by Obama when he failed to include her efforts in his book. ‘My mother worked too hard and too long of a time. That hurts when someone who has
been a sole soldier for so long and continues to be a soldier for environmental issues…for someone to exploit the work that she has done is not fair.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 2/20/07]
THEN: Obama And Johnson Worked On Asbestos Clean Up After Fiber Glass. “Altgeld Gardens
resident Hazel Johnson, 69, worked with Obama in the Developing Communities Project on pushing the Chicago Housing Authority to remove asbestos from public housing and other issues. She remembers Obama renting a bus to take a group of residents downtown to protest at CHA headquarters. ‘He even got us coffee and doughnuts,” she said. “And he didn’t have to do that.’” [Chicago Sun Times, 10/3/04]
NOW: Obama Didn’t Help With The Asbestos Clean Up After Fiber Glass. “And, they claim, Obama
didn’t work cleaning up asbestos at Altgeld, but fiber glass, another environmental hazard.” [CBS2Chicago, 2/20/07]
NOW?: Johnson: Obama Was “A Good Organizer. I’ve Got To Hand It To Him.” The Nation
reported, “Hazel Johnson, a longtime Altgeld Gardens environmental activist, says, ‘Yeah, he’s a good organizer. I’ve got to give it to him.’” [The Nation, 4/3/07]
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’s good citizenship is incorrect.” [p 140]
REALITY: AYERS AND DOHRN ARE MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT WITH TIES TO
Mayor Daley: Bill Ayers Worked With Me In Shaping Our Now Nationally-Renowned School Reform
Program And Tarring Obama For Knowing Him Is Another Reason Americans Are Angry With
Washington. “There are a lot of reasons that Americans are angry about Washington politics. And one more example is the way Senator Obama’s opponents are playing guilt-by-association, tarring him because he happens to know Bill Ayers. I also know Bill Ayers. He worked with me in shaping our now nationallyrenowned school reform program. He is a nationally-recognized distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois/Chicago and a valued member of the Chicago community. I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles.” [Tribune,
FIU Law Professor Stanley Fish: I Too Have Eaten Dinner At Bill Ayers House (More Than Once),
Served On A Committee With Him, And He Was One Of Those Who Recruited My Wife And Me At A
Reception When We Were Considering Positions At UIC. Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University
Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami Stanley Fish wrote, “Confession time. I too have eaten dinner at Bill Ayers’s house (more than once), and have served with him on a committee, and he was one of those who recruited my wife and me at a reception when we were considering positions at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Moreover, I have had Bill and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to my apartment, was a guest lecturer in a course he taught and joined in a (successful) effort to persuade him to stay at UIC and say no to an offer from Harvard. Of course, I’m not running for anything, but I do write for The New York Times and, who knows, this association with former fugitive members of the Weathermen might be enough in the eyes of some to get me canned. Did I conspire with Bill Ayers? Did I help him build bombs? Did I aid and abet his evasion (for a time) of justice? Not likely, given that at the time of the events that brought Ayers and Dohrn to public attention, I was a supporter of the Vietnam War. I haven’t asked him to absolve me of that sin (of which I have since repented), and he hasn’t asked me to forgive him for his (if he has any). Indeed in all the time I spent with Ayers and Dohrn, politics — present or past — never came up.” [New York Times, 4/27/08]
Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Marshall: Ayers And Dohrn Are “Absolutely Upstanding
Establishment Citizens.” The Washington Post reported, “‘It’s kind of laughable for people who have worked with Bernadine and Bill in the most boring and mundane settings and recognize that they’re absolutely upstanding establishment citizens today,’ said Lawrence C. Marshall, a Stanford University law professor. He recalled a juvenile justice project: ‘Judges who were lifelong ardent conservatives had no trouble recognizing that the work that Bernadine and Bill are now doing is completely divorced from anything in their background.’” [Washington Post, 4/8/08]
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
2000: Obama Said That The US Must Be Israel’s Ally In Her Quest For Peace And That “Israel Can
Take Risks For Peace Only Because Of Unwavering American Support.” A CityPAC questionnaire read in part, “Throughout its history, Israel has been anxious to make peace with its Arab neighbors. If successful, the current peace process is a potential opportunity for Israel to increase its security, normalize relations with its neighbors, and create a more stable and prosperous Middle East. Resolution of the conflict depends on direct negotiations between the parties based on mutual respect and recognition. The United States’ commitment to Israel must continue so Israel can negotiate with its former and current adversaries from a position of strength. Senator Obama believes that Israel can take risks for peace only because of unwavering American support.” [CityPAC Questionnaire, 2000 Congressional Primary]
2002: Obama Passed A Resolution That Condemned Terrorist Attacks Against Israel; Called On Arafat To Put An End To Terrorist Attacks “Which Emanate From Areas Under His Jurisdiction.” Obama sponsored and passed a resolution that stated that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has entered a new phase of terrorism against Israeli civilians; and whereas The United States of America is committed to the safety and security of its citizens everywhere; and whereas the United States of America has made it a national priority to put an end to the scourge of such barbaric terror attacks; therefore, be it resolved that the Members of the Illinois State Senate wish a speedy recovery to the above-mentioned citizens as well as the others wounded in
the recent barbaric attack; and be it further resolved that we express our collective outrage at the encouragement, support, and praise given to such terrorists and terror attacks; and be it further resolved that we call upon Palestinian Authority Chairman, Yassar Arafat, to put an end to all such encouragement, support, and praise for these terror attacks, which emanate from areas under his direct jurisdiction; and be it further resolved that the Members of the Illinois State Senate support the policy of the United States government in resisting
terrorism throughout the world, and in seeking peace for Israel and its neighboring nations seeking a permanent peace accord; and be it further. [92nd GA, SR 346, Adopted 4/18/02]
2004: Obama Said “Our First And Immutable Commitment Must Be To The Security Of Israel.” The
Chicago Daily Herald reported, “‘Our first and immutable commitment must be to the security of Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East and the only democracy,’ Obama said in a July speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 10/18/04]
2006: Obama Cosponsored And Passed The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act Which Would Discourage
International Aid To Hamas Unless It Recognizes Israel, Disarms And Renounces Violence. In 2006, Obama cosponsored the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which: (1) States that it shall be U.S. policy to support a peaceful, two-state solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Roadmap),and oppose those organizations, individuals, and countries that support terrorism and violently reject such twostate
solution; (2) provides assistance to the Hamas-controlled PA only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency, or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist and the Hamascontrolled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism. [S. 2370, Became Public Law No: 109-446, 12/21/06]
2006: Obama Cosponsored And Passed A Resolution Endorsing Israel’s Right To Self-Defense And
Condemning Hamas And Hezbollah. In 2006, Obama cosponsored a resolution condemning Hezbollah and Hamas and their state sponsors and supporting Israel’s exercise of its right to self-defense. The resolution (1) reaffirmed steadfast support for Israel, (2) supports Israel’s right of self-defense and its right to take appropriate action to deter aggression by terrorist groups and their state sponsors, (3) urges the President to continue to fully
support Israel in exercising its right of self-defense in Lebanon and Gaza, (4) calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah or Hamas, (5) condemns the governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas and holds these governments responsible for the acts of aggression carried out by Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel. [S. Res 534, Passed/agreed to inSenate, 7/18/06]
2007: Obama Spoke With Prime Minister Olmert As Annapolis Talks Began, Reiterated His
Commitment To Israel’s Security As The Basis For Peace Negotiations. Obama said in a release,
“Annapolis is a hopeful development because Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in serious discussions again and the countries of the region are involved, and I commend Prime Minister Olmert and President Abbas for making the effort. I spoke with Prime Minister Olmert today, and assured him of my strong support for this effort and my unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security as a core principle as negotiations move forward. The Administration deserves credit for finally trying to use presidential diplomacy to bring the parties together. It’s a big change from the last six and a half years, when President Bush badly neglected this conflict. Recognizing the complexity of the issues under discussion and the importance of the conflict, it is my hope that this conference is just the start of a sustained push by the United States, the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve the goal of two states living side-by-side in peace and security.” [Press Release, 11/27/07]
2008: Obama Said Israel Was Among America’s “Most Important Allies And Their Security Is
Sacrosanct.” The Jerusalem Post reported, “While discussing issues of anti-Semitism, Obama said: ‘One of the reasons why so many of my supporters come from the Jewish community…is that I have been a stalwart friend of Israel and supported the special relationship we enjoy with it… They are among our most important allies and their security is sacrosanct.’” [Jerusalem Post, 2/27/08]
LIE: “The year 1995 was a banner one for Obama. He had just married Michelle and the couple boughta Hyde Park condo, the first home Obama ever owned.”[p 145]
REALITY: OBAMAS MARRIED IN 1992 AND BOUGHT A CONDO IN 1993
10/3/92 Obama And Michelle Robinson Were Married. [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/3/07]
1993 Obama Bought a Condo for $277,550. [Chicago Sun-Times, 1/22/06]
LIE: “Instead of stepping aside in deference to Palmer, Obama decided to fight her for the
nomination.” [p 146]
REALITY: PALMER PULLED HER OWN PLUG
Barbara Flynn Currie: Alice Palmer “Pulled Her Own Plug.” “‘I thought the world of Alice Palmer,’ said state Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago), now the House majority leader. But ‘at that point she had pulled her own plug.’” [Chicago Tribune, 4/3/07]
Preckwinkle: Obama Did The Right Thing. “Toni Preckwinkle (D), a 4th Ward alderman, believes Obama did the right thing, although his maneuver left some hard feelings.” [Washington Post, 11/13/07]
Obama Said He Was “Abiding By The Rules That Had Been Set Up” In Challenging Alice Palmer’s
Petitions. “In a recent interview, Obama granted that ‘there’s a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn’t create barriers to people getting on the ballot.’ But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents’ signature sheets. ‘To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up,’ Obama recalled. ‘I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn’t
meet the requirements,’ he said. ‘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.’ Asked whether the district’s primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: ‘I think they ended up with a very good state senator.’” [Chicago Tribune, 4/3/07]
LIE: “Besides, Obama had to know who Ayers is and what he stands for, especially with Ayers
making this splash on 9/11.” [p 147]
REALITY: AYERS COMMENTS WERE PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 11; THE INTERVIEW
OCCURRED PRIOR TO PUBLICATION
On September 11, 2001, A Story About William Ayers’ Memoir Was Published In The New York Times; The Interview Occurred Prior To Publication. “‘I don’t regret setting bombs,’ Bill Ayers said. ‘I feel we didn’t do enough.’ Mr. Ayers, who spent the 1970’s as a fugitive in the Weather Underground, was sitting in the kitchen of his big turn-of-the-19th-century stone house in the Hyde Park district of Chicago.” [New York Times, 9/11/01]
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.” [p 154]
REALITY: BEFORE OBAMA SAT DOWN FOR THREE TOTAL HOURS WITH THE CHICAGO
TRIBUNE AND THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, HE HAD REPEATEDLY ADDRESSED
QUESTIONS RELATED TO REZKO
Chicago Tribune: Obama “Pledged To Answer Every Question” The Reporters Posed About Rezko
“And He Did.” The Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, “The most remarkable facet of Obama’s 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.” [Chicago Tribune, 3/16/08]
11/06: Obama said, “My working assumption was that as long as I operated in an open, up-front fashion, and all the T’s were crossed and I’s were dotted, that it wouldn’t be an issue…If it was a neighbor I didn’t know at all, would I have behaved any differently? I felt like the answer was no.” [Chicago Tribune, 11/1/06]
11/06: Sweet wrote, “Obama, in a session with local reporters said ‘I’m human like everybody else and I’m going to make mistakes.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 11/7/06]
11/06: Obama said, “I think it created an appearance that he was potentially doing me a favor. And that’s something that, you know, I’ve always tried to stay very far away from that line, which is why I don’t even let lobbyists buy me lunch.” [National Public Radio, 11/16/06]
12/06: The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama further told Tribune editors and reporters Dec. 14: ‘In retrospect, it was stupid. So I’m happy to own up to that. And, I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that, by buying the piece of property next to me, that he would, if not be doing me a favor, that it would help strengthen our relationship.’” [Chicago Tribune, 12/24/06]
12/06: “There’s no doubt that this was a mistake on my part. ‘Boneheaded’ would be accurate,’ Obama said in a telephone interview Friday.” [Washington Post, 12/17/06]
4/07: There was also a hastily arranged April, 23, 2007, session where Obama talked to some Chicago reporters. [Politico, 4/24/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 3/3/08]
5/07: Stephanopoulos said, “This exact same day several months later you bought part of the plot back from him. All at that time it was known that he was being investigated for corruption and kickbacks. What were you thinking?” Obama said, “Well, obviously I wasn’t thinking enough. You know, I’m very proud of my ethics record. I mean, I was famous in Springfield for not letting lobbyists even buy me lunch. And so, you know, this is one time where I didn’t see the appearance of impropriety because I paid full price for the
land. There has been no allegations of anything other than that. But it raised the possibility that here was somebody who was a friend of mine who was doing me a favor and I said it was a bone-headed mistake.”
[This Week, 5/13/07]
11/07: Russert asked, “Is he still your friend?” Obama said, “You know, I have not talked to him since he got into trouble with the law.” Russert confirmed, “Period.” Obama said, “Never had a conversation with him.” [Meet The Press, 11/11/07]
1/08: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened. I was a associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project, and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to. Now, it’s fine for her to throw that out, but the larger reason that I think this debate is important is because we do have to trust our leaders and what they say. [Debate,
1/08: Obama said, “My relationship is he was somebody who I knew and had been a supporter for many years. He was somebody who had supported the wide-range of candidates all throughout Illinois. Nobody had an inkling that he was involved in any problems. When those problems were discovered we returned money from him that had been contributed. And, what is true is is that I also purchased a piece of land from him. Everything was above board and there’s been no allegations that there wasn’t.” [CBS Early Show, 1/23/08]
1/08: Obama said, “Well, we have returned any money that we know was associated to Mr. Rezko and that is something that if there’s additional information we don’t know about. We would be happy to return the money.” [Good Morning America, 1/23/08]
1/08: Obama said, “I mean, I think what’s striking is this is the best folks can dig up on me – is something that where it’s undisputed and all the Chicago papers have acknowledged, I did absolutely nothing wrong other than make a bone-headed decision to buy a 10 foot piece of land from the guy that created the appearance of potentially an impropriety. But that was done completely in a market price. Other than that, there have been no real allegations, you know, even from my worst opponents, of how I was involved in something untoward. So, you know, if this is the worst that the Republicans can come up with, then my suspicion is I’m doing pretty well.” [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Editorial Board Interview, 1/25/08]
1/08: George Stephanopoulos said, “One more time, Senator, you need to divulge all there is to know about [your relationship with Tony Rezko.] Take that opportunity here.” Obama said, “Well, George, this is a story that has been out there for a year, and has been thoroughly gnawed on by the press, both in Chicago and nationally. Tony Rezko was a friend of mine, a supporter, who I’ve known for 20 years. He was a contributor not just myself but Democrats, as well as some Republicans, throughout Illinois. Everybody perceived him as a businessman and developer. He got into trouble that was completely unrelated to me. And nobody has suggested that I have been involved in any of those problems. I did make a mistake by purchasing a small strip of property from him, at a time where, at that point, he was under the cloud of a potential investigation. And I’ve acknowledged that that was a mistake. But again, nobody has suggested any wrongdoing. And you know, I think, at this point, it’s important for people to recognize that I have actually provided all the information that’s out there about it.” [This Week, 1/27/08]
3/08: “He got into trouble that was completely unrelated to me and the trouble that he’s in right now is completely unrelated to anything that I have done.” [ABC News, 3/2/08]
3/08: He took some questions on Rezko, breaking no real new ground. [Politico, 3/3/08]
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.” [p 157]
REALITY: OBAMA WAS RECRUITED TO PROJECT VOTE
Newman Approached Obama For Project Vote. Chicago Magazine reported, ““Project Vote! is nonpartisan, strictly nonpartisan. But we do focus our efforts on minority voters, and on states where we can explain to them why their vote will matter. Braun made that easier in Illinois.” So [Sandy] Newman decided to open a Cook County Project Vote! office and went looking for someone to head it. The name Barack Obama surfaced. “I was asking around among community activists in Chicago and around the country, and they kept mentioning him,”
Newman says. Obama by then was working with church and community leaders on the West Side, and he was writing a book that the publisher Simon & Schuster had contracted for while he was editor of the law review. He was 30 years old. When Newman called, Obama agreed to put his other work aside. “I’m still not quite sure why,” Newman says. “This was not glamorous, high-paying work. But I am certainly grateful. He did one hell of a job.” [Chicago Magazine, 1/93]
LIE: “As we shall see, Rezko was persistent, ultimately convincing Obama to drop working for
political organizing causes so he could 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.” [p 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.” [p 158] … “The liklihood is that Rezko played a
role in getting Obama to join Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland.” [p 158]
REALITY: JUDSON MINER RECRUITED OBAMA TO HIS FIRM OUT OF HARVARD
Judson Miner Recruited Obama To Miner Barnhill Out Of Harvard. The AP reported, “Attorney Judson Miner called Harvard to offer a job to a graduating student named Barack Obama and didn’t expect to be showered with gratitude. Still, he wasn’t expecting the reception he got. ‘You can leave your name and take a number,’ the woman who answered the phone at the Harvard Law Review said breezily. ‘ You’re No. 647.’ That was 1991 and even then Obama — the Illinois senator now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination — was a hot commodity. As the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama had his pick of top law firms. He chose Miner’s Chicago civil rights firm, where he represented community organizers, discrimination victims and black voters trying to force a redrawing of city ward boundaries.” [AP, 2/20/07]
LIE: “Rezko found the house for Obama.” [p 165]
REALITY: OBAMAS LOOKED AT SEVERAL HOUSES VIA THEIR BROKER, HOUSE LISTING IS AVAILABLE ON OBAMA’S WEBSITE
Obama Said That Michelle Obama Toured The House And Had Most Contact With Agent, Asked Obama To See It Himself And Obama Did. “So just fast forward – I win the Senate race, we go to Washington. Because of the good fortune of publicity, the book starts selling, I have more money, our kids are growing, and we become interested in moving out our condo and buying a house. So at that point, I contact our broker who had helped us buy our condo, a woman named Mariam Zeltzerman, and who was with a real estate agency called Urban Search, which is very prominent in the Hyde Park area, and told her that we’d like to list our condominium for sale, and that we were interested in buying a new house. I was in Washington much of
this time, this is the beginning of 2005 – or somewhere in 2005. So Michelle started taking some tours with Mariam, and at some point ends up being shown the house which we now live in. Michelle calls me and says ‘I love this house, but it’s more than we were talking about paying for, but I really think it’s a great house and you should go take a look at it.’ I did, and I also thought it was a terrific house.’” [Transcript, Chicago Tribune Editorial Board Meeting, 3/14/08]
Obama Said Michelle Obama And Realtor “Probably Looked At Ten Houses” But Both He And Michelle
Obama Fell In Love With The South Greenwood Property. “‘[The broker] and Michelle went off and
probably looked at 10 houses. One of the last ones they looked at was the house on Greenwood, which Michelle fell in love with and was actually slightly above, well it was above, what we’d originally intended to pay. Michelle called me. She says, ‘I saw this house, I really like it, it’s more than we originally budgeted for. I’d like you to take a look at it.’ So I went with Miriam to take a look at the house. It was a wonderful house.” [Chicago Sun-Times Editorial Board Meeting Transcript, 3/14/08]
Obama’s Home Listing Is Publicly Available. On Barack Obama’s website, the public can view the listing of Obama’s house. [BarackObama.com]
LIE: “The letters appeared to contradict statements from Obama that he never did any favors for Rezko.” [p 162]
REALITY: THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN – UNSOLICITED – TO SUPPORT WHAT WOULD BECOME A SUCCESSFUL SENIORS HOUSING PROJECT
Obama Supported The Project “Because It Was Going To Help People In His District…It’s A Successful Project… And He’s Proud To Have Supported It.” Burton said, “I don’t know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter nine years ago…There was a consensus in the community about the positive impact the project would make and Obama supported it because it was going to help people in his district… They had a wellness clinic and adult day-care services, as well as a series of social services for residents. It’s a successful
project. It’s meant a lot to the community, and he’s proud to have supported it.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 6/13/07]
Rezko Attorney: “Rezko Never Spoke With, Nor Sought A Letter From, Senator Obama In Connection
With That Project.” Rezko’s attorney, Joseph Duffy, told the Sun-Times: “Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project.” [AP, 6/14/07]
5/2006: Cottage View Terrace “Successfully Completed Inspection Without Finds Or Violations Of
Regulations.” Rosalyn Banks-Jordan, an Associate Asset Manager for the Illinois Housing Development Authority, wrote in a cover letter to the inspection report, “Please note that this development has successfully completed the inspection without findings or violations of regulations.” [IHDA Letter, 5/15/06]
LIE: “Yet Obama’s campaign characteristically denied Obama had been involved in working at the
law firm for Rezko or his rehab projects.” [p 163]
REALITY: “OBAMA NEVER REPRESENTED REZKO. NEVER. EVER.”
Zeldin: “No One Who Has Ever Practiced Law…Could Argue, With A Clear Conscience, That These
Five Hours On Behalf Of A Church Group…Equated Knowingly Representing A Chicago Slumlord.”
Michael Zeldin, a former independent counsel and federal prosecutor wrote “No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation.” [Wall Street Journal, 1/31/08]
Russell: “Obama Never Represented Rezko. Never. Ever.” Karen Russell wrote, “Clinton claimed Obama represented Tony Rezko. Obama never represented Rezko. Never. Ever.” [Yahoo, 1/24/08]
FactCheck.org Says It’s “Untrue” That Obama Represented Rezko. Factcheck.org reported, “Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There’s no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was “representing … Rezko.” That’s untrue.” [FactCheck.org, 1/21/08]
Chicago Tribune Review Of “Land And Court Document And Law Firm Files As Well As
Correspondence And Other Records…Supports [Obama’s] Contention That He Did Not Directly
Represent Rezko’s Development Firm.” The Chicago Tribune reported, “Obama angrily rejected Clinton’s accusation at Monday’s Democratic debate. And a Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama’s eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko’s development firm. Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko’s firm.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
Tribune Examined Miner Barnhill’s “260 Civil And Criminal Cases,” IHDA And DOH Files, Clients From Obama’s “Unusually Frank Ethics Disclosure Reports” And Found Obama Represented The Non-Profit Partner. The Chicago Tribune reported, “At the Tribune’s request, Cook County Circuit Court Chief Judge Timothy Evans produced a list of all 260 civil and criminal cases in which the firm filed appearances, and the Tribune separately examined 1990s lawsuits that Rezmar Corp. listed in applications for government grants. The paper also examined files from the Illinois Housing Development Authority and the city housing department, as well as the hundreds of clients Obama listed in the unusually frank ethics disclosure reports he filed as a state senator from December 1995 through April 2004. Those and other records disclosed five instances in which Obama did legal work for ventures that included Rezmar Corp.
The case of City of Chicago vs. Central Woodlawn Limited Partnership is one example. In 1992, that community group partnered with Rezmar Corp. to rehab the former slum apartment building at 6107-6115 S. Ellis Ave. As work was ongoing, city officials sued the developers, alleging 16 serious code violations at the property, including a dangerously dilapidated porch. Obama and a co-counsel filed appearances in February 1994, but the court records show they appeared on behalf of Central Woodlawn, Rezko’s nonprofit partner, not Rezko or his company.” [Chicago Tribune, 1/23/08]
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.” [p 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
The Sellers Did Not Discount The Price Of The House Based On The Lot, Obamas Made Several Offers For The House Including The Highest. Bloomberg reported, “Burton said a campaign adviser discussed the sale with Wondisford by phone and followed up with an e-mail to Wondisford repeating his points. Wondisford responded: ‘I confirm that the three points below are accurate,’ according to the e-mail, provided to Bloomberg News and authenticated through records shown by the adviser. The e-mail says that the sellers ‘did not offer or give the Obamas a ‘discount’ on the house price on the basis of or in relation to the price offered and accepted on the lot.’ It also says that ‘in the course of the negotiation over the sales price,’ Obama and his wife, Michelle, ‘made several offers until the one accepted at $1.65 million, and that this was the best offer you received on the house.’” [Bloomberg, 2/18/08]
Zorn: There Was No “Special Discount” And The Price Of The Lot Was Not Inflated. Eric Zorn wrote, “The Obamas did not get a special discount on the house” and “The sellers rejected two lower bids from the Obamas” and “The Rezkos did not pay an inflated price for the vacant lot.” [Chicago Tribune, 6/10/08]
Brown: “I See No Proof” That Obama Did Something Improper In The Purchase Of His House. Mark
Brown wrote, “On the central question: Did Obama do something improper in the purchase of the house? I see no proof he did, other than that he had no business at all getting involved with Rezko in any personal financial transaction.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 3/15/08]
AP: Obama “Has A Spotless Reputation” And “Has Been Accused Of No Wrongdoing Involving Rezko
Or Anything Else.” The AP reported, “Obama, who has a spotless reputation after 11 years in public offices,has been accused of no wrongdoing involving Rezko or anyone else.” [AP, 1/22/08]
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.” [p 166]
REALITY: MUNICIPAL CODE STATED THAT REZKO HAD TO PAY FOR THE FENCE
Obama Said Rezko Was Obligated To Pay For The Fence Under The Municipal Code. Obama was asked,
“Was the paying for the fence by Tony, uh, would you consider that a gift?” Obama replied, “No. He was obligated to do so under the municipal code.” [Chicago Tribune Editorial Board Transcript, 3/14/08]
Chicago Municipal Code: It Is The Duty Of The Owner Of An Open Lot To Maintain A Fence. The
Chicago Municipal Code read in part, “It shall be the duty of the owner of any open lot located within the City of Chicago to cause the lot to be surrounded with a noncombustible screen fence as defined in Section 13-96-130 of this code, except that this section shall not apply to any governmental agencies or units of local governments, nor to sideyards. The owner shall maintain any such fence in a safe condition without tears, breaks, rust, splinters or dangerous protuberances and to vehicular traffic by obstructiving the view of drivers.”
[Chicago Municipal Code, Article VI, 7-28-750]
LIE: “Obama could offer no explanation of why Rita Rezko bought the vacant lot instead…” [p 169]
REALITY: OBAMA DIDN’T KNOW THAT THE LOT WAS IN RITA REZKO’S NAME UNTIL IT WAS IN THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Obama Said Rezko Never Explained That He Was Putting The Lot Under Rita Rezko’s Name And
Obama Said He Didn’t Discover It Until The Story Broke In The Tribune. Obama was asked, “Did he ever explain to you what he was doing?” Obama replied, “No. I didn’t discover it until the issue of him purchasing this lot broke through, uh, through you.” [Chicago Tribune Editorial Board Transcript, 3/14/08]
LIE: “As fully expected, the Obama campaign continued to maintain Obama had never met Auchi,
saying in effect that Levine had committed perjury.” [p 173]
REALITY: AUCHI DOES NOT RECALL MEETING THE OBAMAS
Auchi Did Not Recall Any Direct Contact With Obama. “Mr Auchi’s lawyer told the Standard: ‘As far as he can remember he has had no direct contact with Mr Obama.’” [The Evening Standard (London), 2/27/08]
Pepper: Auchi Had “No Recollection” Of Meeting Obama Or Michelle. The Washington Post reported, “A lawyer for Auchi, Alasdair Pepper, told me by phone from London that his client also had ‘no recollection’ of any meeting with either Obama or his wife.” [Washington Post, 4/16/08]
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 US State Department about Alsammarae on October 16, 2006, and got a reply from the US
consul in Iraq about a week later.” [p 174]
REALITY: SENATE OFFICE SENT “ROUTINE” LETTER AFTER A REQUEST FROM ALSAMMARAE’S DAUGHTER
Obama Senate Office Emails Regarding Alsammarae Appear “Routine.” Newsweek reported, “Obama
claims that his administration would be ‘open’ and ‘transparent.’ To prove the point, his campaign released emails his Senate office exchanged with U.S. officials on behalf of a man imprisoned in Iraq. The intervention had the potential to cause trouble for Obama because the man, Aiham Al-Sammarae, was a business associate of Antoin (Tony) Rezko, the political fund-raiser now on trial for corruption in Chicago. Obama has taken heat for his murky relationship with Rezko, a political fixer who had a part in Obama’s purchase of a house. (Obama now calls that transaction ‘boneheaded’ and says he has given Rezko-related campaign donations to charity.) Conservative bloggers have played up the Al-Sammarae connection as a key to the Rezko story. Despite requests from NEWSWEEK, the Obama camp initially declined to release the e-mails. Late last week they did, and the e-mail exchange appears routine.” [Newsweek, 3/17/08]
Obama’s Office Contacted State, Forwarded The Reply To Alsammarae’s Daughter And “Took No
Further Action.” “Alsammarae’s family contacted multiple elected officials, including Obama’s U.S. Senate office, when Alsammarae was being held in Iraq. Obama’s office sought information from the State Department about Alsammarae on Oct. 16, 2006, and got a reply from the U.S. Consul in Iraq about a week later. Obama’s staff forwarded that reply to Alsammarae’s daughter and took no further action.” [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/29/08]
Obama’s Office Was Contacted By Alsammarae’s Daughter, Sent Letters To The US Embassy In Iraq
And The US State Department. The Chicago Daily Herald reported, “The daughter of an Oak Brook man
who returned to his native Iraq to help rebuild the country is pleading for the federal government to step in after he was found guilty on corruption charges…Dania Alsammarae said her father, Aiham, is innocent and believes he could be killed if sent to an Iraqi prison. Now, the family is reaching out to Illinois’ U.S. senators, Barack Obama and Dick Durbin, to shield the elder Alsammarae from Iraqi prison…Obama’s office has sent letters to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq and to the U.S. State Department seeking a probe into the matter, said Julian Green, Obama’s spokesman. Green said both agencies are investigating the case. ‘This is an active investigation and we haven’t gotten any additional information to give any type of idea of how this investigation is going to turn out,’ Green said.” [Chicago Daily Herald, 10/19/06]
LIE: “After Kellman hire him, Obama followed Alinsky’s rules by moving into the Hyde Park-
Kenwood area he had been assigned to organize.” [p 184]
REALITY: OBAMA LIVED IN HYDE PARK, BUT ORGANIZED IN ALTGELD
Obama Was A Community Organizer In Altgeld Gardens. US News reported, “As a community organizer in the Altgeld Gardens public housing project in the mid-1980s, Obama, then 23, quickly emerged as a tireless and pragmatic advocate for the community—traits that characterize the kind of president he says he wants to be.” [US News, 8/26/07]
Obama Lived In Hyde Park-Kenwood When He Was A Community Organizer. The Los Angeles Times
reported, “Obama shared a one-bedroom apartment with his gray cat, Max, in Hyde Park-Kenwood – the racially and economically diverse University of Chicago neighborhood where he lives today in an elegant Georgian revival house with his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters. Back then he owned little more than a bed, a table and crates stacked with fiction and social science books.” [Los Angeles Times, 3/2/08]
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.” [p 191]
REALITY: IN 1995, OBAMA CRITICIZED – AT LENGTH – FARRAKHAN’S MESSAGE
Obama Praised The March For Bringing African American Men Together, But Criticized The March
For Its Lack Of Positive Agenda And For Its Separatist Goals. Obama said, “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…here was a profound sense that African-American men were ready to make a commitment to bring about change in our communities and lives. But what was lacking among march organizers was a positive agenda, a coherent agenda for change. Without this agenda a lot of this energy is going to dissipate. Just as holding hands and singing ‘We shall overcome’ is not going to do it, exhorting youth
to have pride in their race, give up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can’t find jobs and futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed, underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage. Exhortations are not enough, nor are the notions that we can create a black economy within America that is hermetically sealed from the rest of the economy and seriously tackle the major issues confronting us.” [Chicago Reader, 12/8/95]
Obama Said That Solutions For Black America Must Come From A “Multicultural, Interdependent,
And International Economy” Because “Cursing Out White Folks Is Not Going To Get The Job Done.
Anti-Semitic And Anti-Asian Statement Are Not Going To Lift Us Up.” Obama said, “Any solution to our
unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don’t also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers–whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people’s benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1. This doesn’t suggest that the need to look inward emphasized by the march isn’t important, and that these African-American tribal affinities aren’t legitimate. These are mean, cruel times, exemplified by a ‘lock ‘em up, take no prisoners’ mentality that dominates the Republican-led Congress. Historically, African-Americans have turned inward and towards black nationalism whenever they have a sense, as we do now, that the mainstream has rebuffed us, and that white Americans couldn’t care less about the profound problems African-Americans are facing. But cursing out white folks is not going to get the job done. Anti-Semitic and anti-Asian statements are not going to lift us up. We’ve got some hard nuts-and-bolts organizing and planning to do. We’ve got communities to build.” [Chicago Reader, 12/8/95]
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.” [p 196]
REALITY: OBAMA WAS IN FLORIDA THE DAY OF WRIGHT’S SERMON
New York Times: Obama Was In Florida On The Day That Kessler Said He Was In Chicago. The New
York Times reported, “Mr. Obama, however, was giving a speech in Florida that afternoon, and his campaign reported he had not attended Mr. Wright’s church that day.” [New York Times, 8/13/08]
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.” [p 227]
REALITY: PLAGIARISM ATTACK WAS A “BASELESS AND DESPERATE PLOY”
Obama And Patrick Have Admitted To Trading Each Others’ Lines. Obama said, “But you know in the end, don’t vote your fears. I’m stealing this line from my buddy (Massachusetts Gov.) Deval Patrick who stole a whole bunch of lines from me when he ran for the governorship, but it’s the right one, don’t vote your fears, vote your aspirations. Vote what you believe.” [The New Republic, 2/18/08; ABC News, 12/21/07]
Melber: Attack “Panned As A Baseless And Desperate Ploy.” Ari Melber wrote, “The Clinton Campaign’s attack on Obama’s use of the line ‘just words’ was widely panned as a baseless and desperate ploy. Her coverup might go over even worse.” [The Nation, 2/19/08]
Jimmy Carter Speechwriter Fallows: Plagiarism Charge Is “Bogus And Overstated.” James Fallows
wrote, “The “plagiarism” flap over Barack Obama is bogus and overstated. It makes me think worse about whoever is pushing this complaint, rather than about Obama himself… Moreover, on the specific Patrick/Obama point at issue: it’s not as if no one had thought of this argument (about hope and inspiration), or these examples — FDR, JFK, MLK Jr — before Deval Patrick uttered them. Speechwriters could hardly exist without this theme or these illustrations!… The list goes on and leads to this: Talk about hope and inspiration, and you are going to
use the examples both Patrick and Obama used — and that I, as just one political speechwriter among legions, have used many times.” [James Fallows, 2/19/08]
Bill Clinton Speechwriter Kusnet: “Next Scandal, Please.” Bill Clinton speechwriter David Kusnet wrote, “If plagiarism is borrowing rhetoric without permission, Patrick most likely is happy to have Obama sound similar notes, such as hope and inspiration being more than “just words.” Even if Obama and Patrick didn’t know each other, they might use some of the same phrases because similar public figures frequently draw on common streams of public rhetoric…Next scandal, please.” [The New Republic, 2/18/08]
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.” [p 228]
REALITY: MANY USE THE WORDS HOODWINKED AND BAMBOOZLED
Keith Cook: “We Were Left Feeling Hoodwinked And Bamboozled.” Keith D. Cook is co-chair of the
Northern Orange Education Task Force and a former member of the school board, “This board-approved plan might have been legal. However, missing was the transparency that we expect from our elected bodies, and we were left feeling hoodwinked and bamboozled. It is important for the school board to be transparent and to operate in the best interests of our children at all times. They didn’t this time — they acted in their own best interest.” [Chapel Hill Herald, 1/16/08] Jesse Jackson Jr: “We’ve Been Hoodwinked, Bamboozled…” Fortunately, the new truth is this: No one– black or white–is buying Beavers’ old-guard, old-thinking, backroom-dealing, race-card playing politics anymore. We’ve been hoodwinked, bamboozled, run amok and led astray by Al Jolson politics before. Voters are fed up and starting to elect people who will stand up to elected officials who are selfishly focused on gouging taxpayers for the sake of protecting insiders. [Chicago Tribune, 12/1/07] Sen. Cleo Fields Said He Was “Hoodwinked, Bamboozled” Into Voting For School Takeover In New Orleans. Sen. Cleo Fields said lawmakers will debate whether to abolish the Recovery School District and return public schools in New Orleans to the control of the Orleans Parish School Board in the upcoming legislative session, which begins in April. Fields, who voted in favor of the school takeover in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, explained his vote Monday by saying he was “hoodwinked, bamboozled. The bottom line is I’m going to fix that when this session starts.” [AP, 2/5/07] City Councilman Thomas Stith Said Constituents Were Being “Hoodwinked And Bamboozled” Over Property Taxes. Bell also took a couple swipes at his only announced challenger, City Councilman Thomas Stith… Stith, who announced his candidacy a week ago, has frequently found himself on the short end of 6-1 votes on the council and cast the only vote against the 2007-08 budget. He opposed the 2.5 percent increase in the property burden the budget required and said residents were being “hoodwinked and bamboozled and led astray.” [Durham Herald-Sun, 7/18/07] New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin: New Orleanians Have been “Hoodwinked And Bamboozled” Into Thinking That The City Wouldn’t Be Rebuilt. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said his city is recovering and that people have been “hoodwinked and bamboozled” into believing it won’t be rebuilt. Nagin spoke at the Essence Music Festival’s empowerment seminars, being held outside New Orleans for the first time because of lingering effects of Hurricane Katrina. “We are moving forward,” he said. “New Orleans is a city that is in recovery and it is coming back.” [Miami Times (Florida), 7/12/06] Keith Douglas Williams: “The Voters Of Alabam Will Not Be Hoodwinked, Bamboozled…” “In the race for state treasurer, Democrats Keith Douglas Williams, a Mobile resident, and Steve Segrest, a Montgomery
real estate agent, are competing for the chance to face incumbent Kay Ivey in the November general election…”Over 1 million Alabamians are owed money by the state treasurer’s office. This is shameful and disgraceful,” Williams said. “The voters of Alabama will not be hoodwinked, bamboozled, flimflammed or fall for the ol’ razzle dazzle.”“ [Montgomery Advisor, 5/18/06] Cook County Clerk Dorothy Brown: “We Won’t Be Hoodwinked Or Bamboozled By George Bush.” So it is not surprising President Bush’s remarks before the National Urban League, in which he accused the Democratic Party of taking the African-American vote for granted, were downplayed by some delegates. Few were willing to admit Bush poked a sore spot. ‘We won’t be hoodwinked or bamboozled by George Bush,’ said Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown, rattling off a list of Bush’s slights: ‘He announced his opposition to affirmative action on Martin Luther King’s Birthday,’ she said. ‘We are going to stay focused on the fact that he disenfranchised African-American voters in Florida.’” [Chicago Sun-Times, 7/24/07]
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-running candidate for president.” [p 230]
REALITY: REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING LAURA BUSH, HAVE ADMITTED TO UNDERSTANDING WHAT MICHELLE WAS TRYING TO SAY
Laura Bush: “I Think” Michelle Meant “I’m More Proud” But Cautioned That One Has To Be Careful
Of Words Because In Many Cases [Your Words Can Be] Misconstrued.” ABC News reported, “Responding to Michelle Obama’s recent remarks that ‘for the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country,’ Mrs. Bush said ‘I think she probably meant ‘I’m more proud’’ but cautioned ‘you have to be very careful in what you say’ on the campaign trail. ‘That’s one of the things you learn and that’s one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president and that is everything you say is looked and in many cases misconstrued.’” [ABC News, 6/9/08] Republican Strategist Bob Beckel Said That He’s Convinced Michelle Obama Meant That She Had Seen People Unify Around The Basic Issues And It Made Her Proud. Republican Strategist Bob Beckel said about Michelle Obama’s comment, “She should not have said it the way she said it, but in fairness to her, she said that she had seen people unify around the basic issues and it made her proud. But she was talking about was the fact that she was proud that people were starting to deal with politics from the top down. I am convinced that she meant it that way.” [Fox News Roundtable, 2/19/08] Republican Elisabeth Hasselbeck Said About Michelle’s Comment That That Michelle Should Have The Opportunity To Be Excited For Her Husband. Elisabeth Hasselbeck said about Michelle Obama’s comment, “I think we should let her have the opportunity to be thoroughly excited even just for her husband. It is incredibly moving. The fact that we’re supposed to be this country of opportunity for all, right? Now for the first time we have a black man and a woman running that could actually be sitting in our white house. That’s incredible.” [The View, 2/19/08] Michelle Obama Explained Her Remarks, Saying That Her Pride Was In The Political Process And That She Was “Absolutely” Always Proud Of America. The New York Times reported, “Asked today to clarify the remark by a local news station in Rhode Island, which holds its primary during the next round, on March 4, she said, ‘What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process,’ according to the Associated Press. ‘For the first time in my lifetime, I’m seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven’t seen and really trying to figure this out — and that’s the source of pride that I
was talking about.’ She added that she has ‘absolutely’ always felt proud of her country and that she and her husband owed where they are today to America’s possibilities.” [New York Times, 2/21/08]
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 book Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America.” [p 232]
REALITY: USING A DEFINITION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS HAVING INFLUENCE
The Thesis Used Carmichael And Hamilton’s Definition Of Black Separationism In Her Study But Did Not Suggest She Was “Influenced” By It. Michelle Obama wrote in her thesis, “Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s (1967) developed definitions of separationism in their discussion of Black Power which guided me in the formulation and use of this concept in the study… Thus, Carmichael and Hamilton define separationism as a necessary stage for the development of the Black community before this group integrates into the “open society”. The idea of creating separate social structure and cultural structures as suggested by these authors serves to clarify definitions of separationism/pluralism as they function in the dependent variable which tries to measure the 26 respondents’ ideologies concerning political and economic relations between the Black and White communities.” [Michelle Obama’s Thesis]
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 and voted ‘Present.’ [P. 238]
REALITY: 20 ILLINOIS SENATORS OPPOSED BORN ALIVE BILLS, 15 VOTED PRESENT ON ONE OR MORE OF THE BILLS 20 Different Senators, Or 34% Of The Entire Senate, Voted Present Or No On One Or All Of The Born Alive Bills. The Senators voting “Present” were: Bowles, Clayborne, del Valle, Halvorson, Hendon, Jacobs, Lightford, Molaro, Myers, Obama, Radogno, Shadid, Viverito, Weaver, Welch. The Senators voting “No” were: Link, Madigan, Parker, Ronen, Silverstein, Welch and Del Valle voted no on one or all born alive bills. [92nd GA, SB 1093, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-6-12; 92nd GA, SB 1094, 3/30/01, 3R P; 34-5-13; 92nd GA, SB 1095, 3/30/01, 3R P; 33-6-13]
LIE: “Critics on the right, who were anything but enthusiastic, sarcastically renamed the bill the ‘Global Poverty Tax.” [p 250]
REALITY: GLOBAL POVERTY ACT DOES NOT INCREASE TAXES
Global Poverty Act Does Not Impose A Tax Or Allow Any Other Body To Impose A Tax On The United
States. Media Matters reported, “In his book, Corsi writes that the Global Poverty Act, sponsored by Obama, would “increase taxes on U.S. citizens to pay for world poverty through the United Nations.” As evidence, Corsi quotes a February 12 column by Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid, which falsely asserted that the bill “would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.” But as Media Matters
for America has repeatedly documented, the bill does not impose a tax or allow any other body to impose a tax on the United States. Further, the bill would establish no specific funding source and would not commit the United States to any targeted level of spending. The bill directs the president, acting through the secretary of state, to develop a strategy to meet the goal of reducing poverty. It also states that strategy “should include” among its components “[i]mproving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate,” but it does not require that foreign aid be increased or mandate a funding level for foreign assistance. The Global Poverty Act is currently pending on the Senate floor after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the bill with amendments on April 24. The amended bill also does not establish a specific funding source or commit the United States to any targeted level of spending. A companion version of the bill, introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), passed the House by voice vote on September 25, 2007.” [Media Matters, 8/4/08]
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.” [p 257]
REALITY: OBAMA WOULD INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE MILITARY
McCain Advisor Kagan: “Actually, Obama Wants To Increase Defense Spending.” Robert Kagan has
been advising John McCain’s presidential campaign on an informal and unpaid basis. He wrote of Obama’s foreign policy speech, Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism. Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism. He wants the American military to ‘stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar,’ and he believes that ‘the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face.’ He wants to ensure that we continue to have ‘the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.’ Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that ‘no president should ever hesitate to use force — unilaterally if necessary,’ not only ‘to protect ourselves…when we are attacked,’ but also to protect ‘our vital interests’ when they are ‘imminently threatened.’” [Washington Post, 4/29/07]
Obama Said The “In The Immediate Future” The Defense Budget Would Need To Be “Somewhat
Higher…Just To Restore Readiness And Replace Equipment.” “‘Indeed,’ [Obama] says, ‘given the
depletion of our forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will probably need a somewhat higher budget in the immediate future just to restore readiness and replace equipment.’” [AP, 10/12/06]
Obama Said That He Supported A Higher Defense Budget In The Future To “Restore Readiness And
Replace Equipment.” Obama wrote, “For starters, our defense spending and the force structure of our military should reflect the new reality… Indeed, given the depletion of our forces after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will probably need a somewhat higher budget in the immediate future just to restore readiness and replace equipment.” [Audacity of Hope, pp 306-307]
Obama “Often Tells Democrats Things Many Don’t Care To Hear” Including That Military Spending
Would Not Be Immediately Cut In An Obama Administration. Yepsen wrote in the Des Moines Register, “In appearances, he often tells Democrats things many don’t care to hear. For example, at his rally in Cedar Rapids on Saturday, he was asked about cutting military spending in order to free up money for other priorities, something liberal Democrats have been after for decades. But Obama said ‘in terms of the overall military budget, I will tell you that we are going to have problems making immediate cuts, because one of the untold stories about this war is the way it has depleted our military. The fact of the matter is, we are going to need
more troops that we currently possess’ because of the pressure Iraq has placed on the National Guard and reserves, he said. ‘We’re going to have to build up the size of our active regular forces. We’re going to have to replace the equipment that has been depleted…There’s probably going to be a bump in initial military spending just to get back to where we were.” [Des Moines Register, 2/12/07]
LIE: “He has been endorsed by Hamas and had to fire a Middle Eastern advisor who had been
privately meeting with Hamas.” [p 257]
REALITY: HAMAS DID NOT ENDORSE OBAMA, INFORMAL ADVISOR RESIGNED
Washington Post Fact Checker: It Is An Exaggeration To Say That Hamas Endorsed Obama For
President. “Similarly, it is an exaggeration to say that the extreme Hamas faction in Gaza has ‘endorsed’ Obama for president.” [Washington Post, 5/1/08]
Informal Advisor for Obama Resigned after Hamas Meeting. “Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas — something Obama pledged he himself would never do…. LaBolt, downplaying Malley’s role, said, ‘Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future.’” [Chicago Sun-Times,5/11/08]
LIE: “Another Obama advisor with decidedly anti-Israel views is General Merrill ‘Tony’ McPeak,
retired US Air Force chief of staff under President Clinton, who is currently a senior foreign
policy advisor to Obama and co-chairman of Obama’s presidential campaign committee.” [p 267]
REALITY: SMEARING MCPEAK AS AN ANTI-SEMITE IS “GROTESQUE”
James Fallows: The “Attempt To Paint Merrill McPeak As An Anti-Semite Is Grotesque.” James
Fallows wrote, “That they would bless this attempt to paint Merrill McPeak as an anti-Semite is grotesque. I doubt that the author of the hit job ever bothered to speak with or interview McPeak. I have done so many times, during and after his days as Air Force chief of staff (which he was during the first Gulf War). People can agree or disagree with McPeak’s foreign policy or his record at the Pentagon — but that’s not what we’re talking about here. Any attempt to fish out a quote that will banish him as a bigot is exactly as fair and accurate as depicting Bill Clinton as being personally a racist based on his ‘fairy tale’ and ‘Jesse Jackson’ comments around the time of the South Carolina primary. I say this having heard McPeak lay out his views, starting while the Gulf War was underway 17 years ago, about how to maintain general stability, US interests, and Israeli security in the Middle East.” [The Atlantic, 3/26/08]
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 accomplishingthe policy goal they proclaimed.” [p 261]
REALITY: ELIMINATING NUCLEAR ARSENAL IS A BIPARTISAN GOAL AND OBAMA HAS
WORKED WITH REPUBLICAN DICK LUGAR TO THAT END
Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, Nunn: “We Endorse Setting The Goal Of A World Free Of Nuclear Weapons.” George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn wrote a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for America to work toward eliminating the world’s nuclear arsenal. The op-ed read in part, “Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America’s moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons and working energetically on the actions required to achieve that goal, beginning with the measures outlined above.” [Wall Street Journal, Op-Ed, 1/4/07]
Gary Hart: Obama “Deserves Attention And Respect” For “Placing The Issue Of The Elimination Of
Nuclear Arsenals At The Center Of His Foreign Policy.” A Council For A Livable World press release read, “Senator Gary Hart, chairman of Council for a Livable World, applauded Obama’s pledge. Hart remarked ‘By placing the issue of the elimination of nuclear arsenals at the center of his foreign policy, Senator Barack Obama has performed a great public service and deserves attention and respect from all those who see this issueas crucial to our times and who have been watching and waiting for strong leadership and courage.’” [PressRelease, 10/3/07]
Obama Passed Legislation To Keep Weapons Of Mass Destruction Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists;
Lugar Said He And Obama Worked With The Administration To Improve Nuclear Counter-
Proliferation Policies And Increase Budget. In 2006, Obama was an original co-sponsor of legislation to expand U.S. cooperation to destroy conventional weapons. It also expands the State Department’s ability to detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. The legislation was included in an appropriations bill that was later signed into law by the president. Senator Lugar said the following in support of the joint, bipartisan, Lugar-Obama legislation aimed at comprehensive nonproliferation: “Senator Obama and I are attempting to ensure that everything possible is being done to secure such stockpiles worldwide… Senator Obama and I have sought to work closely with the administration on our legislation. Last month, Senator Obama and I wrote to Secretary Rice urging full funding for programs aimed at counter-proliferation and safeguarding conventional weapons stockpiles… Senator Obama and I are hopeful for a constructive response that recognizes the nuances of the threats involved and the necessity of preventing bureaucratic obstacles to action. We are hopeful for a partnership with the administration that assigns these tasks a high priority. We look forward to working closely with the administration to get this done.” [Congress, S. 2566, Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 456, 5/25/06; Provisions included in H.R. 6060/P.L. 109-706; Transcripts, Foreign Relations Senate Committee Hearing, 2/9/06]
Obama Passed An Amendment Based On The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction Act. In
2005, Obama was an original cosponsor of an amendment, which passed on a floor vote, based on the Lugar-Obama bill that facilitated implementation of the Cooperative threat reduction program by removing the self-imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. The amendment was included in the final version of the bill that was signed into law. [SA 1380 agreed to in Senate, Vote 200, Yea-Nay Vote. 78 – 19; S. 1042/H.R. 1815 Became Public Law No: 109-163]
Obama Passed An Amendment That Increased Threat Reduction Funding By $8 Million. In 2006,
Obama was an original cosponsor of an amendment that increased by $8,000,000 funding for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account the amount appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction. The funding was retained in the bill signed into law. [SA 3599 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote, 4/27/06]
CONSIDER THE SOURCE: CORSI HOLDS WIDELY DISCREDITED BELIEFS
Corsi is an advocate for fringe, conspiratorial arguments: that President Bush is trying to create a North American Union merging the United States, Mexico and Canada (which he blames for the Minnesota bridge collapse); that, despite scientific evidence, there is an unending supply of oil; and, perhaps most disturbingly, that the government is hiding the truth behind the attacks on September 11th, arguing that airplanes were not truly to blame for the collapse of the twin towers.
CORSI IS A 9/11 TRUTH BELIEVER—THAT AIRPLANES WERE NOT TRULY TO BLAME FOR DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE TOWERS
Corsi is a 9/11 Truther. In a radio interview, Corsi said, “I’m gonna come out with a story, I think is gonna be earth-shaking, and that is from Steven Jones, the physicist from BYU who’s been dismissed. Well, he’s now gotten samples of the World Trade Center dust, and he’s demonstrated the dust has formed these spheres, these iron spheres, that can only be formed under extremely high temperatures. And I know enough about the science to know he’s right. The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced. so when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microcopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the WTC dust…In attacking these things, first scientifically…for me, what tips the scales is when you’ve got science that the conventional hypothesis doesn’t explain.” [Alex Jones show, 1/29/08]
CORSI FANCIES HIMSELF AN EXPERT—AND IS HAPPY TO WRITE BOOKS—ON ANY AND EVERYTHING
Corsi: Minnesota Bridge Collapse Cause By “NAFTA Superhighway.” Under the headline “NAFTA
Superhighway traffic tied to bridge collapse; WND uncovers federal study warning of high risk in 1998,” Corsi wrote, “Evidence of increasing international trade truck traffic on interstate 35 through Minnesota raises concerns that NAFTA Superhighway traffic contributed to last week’s collapse of the freeway bridge in Minneapolis.” [World Net Daily, 8/5/07] Corsi Wrote a Book Saying Bush’s “Globalist Agenda” Is Leading to a North American Union. “The real reason behind President Bush’s push for immigration reform, says author Jerome R. Corsi, is to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada by erasing borders and creating a “North American Union.” That is the theme of Mr. Corsi’s new book, “The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada,” which says the Bush administration’s ‘globalist agenda’ is leading to a merger of the countries through the implementation of policies and laws to open trade barriers and renovate the highway systems in anticipation of increased travel within the new megastate. Mr. Corsi said a growing number of Americans think the North American Union is being forced onto Americans. Government officials say the idea is no more than an unjustified conspiracy theory spread through the Internet. Mr. Corsi said the impetus of the plan was the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, announced by leaders of the United States, Mexico and Canada at Waco, Texas, in 2005.” [Washington Times, 7/18/07]
• Conservative Human Events Writer: Corsi Isn’t “Any More Worthy Of Being Taken Seriously Than
Those Who Think Jews Rule The World Or The ‘Truthers’ Who Think President Bush Is Responsible For 9/11.” Under the headline “There Isn’t Going to Be a North American Union,” John Hawkins wrote, “Yesterday, Jerome Corsi was prattling on about the North American Union again after Michael Medved deservedly spanked him for spreading conspiracy theories. While I don’t think Corsi is any
more worthy of being taken seriously than those who think Jews rule the world or the ‘Truthers’ who think President Bush is responsible for 9/11, I thought I would respond to him one last time. (I think that’s about the fourth time I’ve said that.) Now, why respond again? What’s the point? Well unfortunately, a lot of conservatives consider this conspiracy theory to be so preposterous that they believe it’s beneath them to even bother discussing it, and that leaves Corsi and his ilk to dominate the debate. And since there are a lot of conservatives being taken in by this North American Union nonsense, somebody has got to step up to the plate.” [Human Events Online, 1/10/07]
• Editor of Human Events: “I Guess There Are People Who Believe In” Corsi’s North American Union Conspiracy, “But There Are People Who Believe In Bigfoot.” Corsi plays on growing nationalist fears. He sees a scenario in which a North American Union is born and shares a currency, the “amero.” Even some right-wing standard-bearers regard the fears as over-blown. Jed Babbin, editor of the conservative newspaper Human Events, says: “I guess there are people who believe in [the plan for a North American Union]. But there are people who believe in Bigfoot.” [Newsweek, 12/10/07]
Corsi Wrote a Book Disagreeing With Most Scientists That There is a Limit to Oil. “All his life, Jerome Corsi’s been told that we’re running out of oil. “I remember driving with my dad in a 1952 Plymouth and listening to him talk about the end of oil,” says the 59-year-old New Jersey author. “Hasn’t happened yet, and it’s not going to happen.” What makes him so sure? He doesn’t buy the fossil fuel theory–that oil comes from dead plants and dinosaurs. He believes it comes out of the ground naturally, and that there’s more coming up all the time… Eighteenth century Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov found biological debris in oil and concluded that it must have biological origin. “I’m at the point where the dinosaur theory seems silly,” says Corsi. “You take a pile of cats and you bury them, dig them up 10 years later and you don’t get oil.” “The truth is that there is so much oil around the world that it’s been easy to find,” Corsi says. “We’re awash in oil. There’s more oil today in proven reserves than ever before in human history.” [Western Standard (Alberta), 2/13/06]
Corsi Wrote a Book on the Minuteman Project with Jim Gilchrist. “In Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders, Gilchrist teams up with bestselling author Jerome Corsi (coauthor of Unfit for Command, the book that derailed John Kerry’s presidential campaign) to provide a shocking firsthand account of the fierce battle that is raging today at America’s southern border — and the plucky team of patriots that is fighting for our country there. Minutemen describes in vivid detail how our nation’s southern border has disintegrated into a horrifying, anything-goes Wild West of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and violent gangs. But Gilchrest and Corsi also explain here why out-of-control illegal immigration poses a threat not only to the border regions, but also to our nation as a whole. They detail why illegal immigration amounts to nothing less than a Trojan Horse invasion of our country, and a springboard for Mexico’s ambitious plan to reconquer the American southwest. They clarify why illegal immigration is now creating a massive crisis in social services, saddling the American middle class with an immense, onerous tax burden, giving street gangs and drug cartels free rein in American cities, and even providing a handy escape route for killers fleeing justice in Mexico. Even jihad terrorists have taken notice of our porous borders, and are taking full advantage of them.” [Human Events BookReview] Corsi Wrote a Book Claiming Democrats Were Being Corrupted by Iranian Funding and Helping Iranians Get Nukes. “After their bitter campaign 2004 experience with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John Kerry and his fellow Dems aren’t waiting to be shot at again. Yesterday, aides to Sens. Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy jumped all over literary mugger Jerome Corsi, co-author of the Kerry-bashing best seller ‘Unfit for Command.’ They knocked him to the ground and kicked him in the face (metaphorically, anyway) over his next Democrattrashing tome, ‘Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians.’ The book – which Nashville’s Cumberland House Publishing won’t release till next month – claims Democratic pols are being corrupted by Iranian money and helping the nuke-seeking mullahs in Tehran.” [Daily News (New York), 2/24/05]
Corsi Wrote Unfit For Command Although He Was Not a Veteran. “Though not a veteran himself, Corsi co-authored “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.” [Boston Herald, 1/25/05]
CONSIDER THE SOURCE: CORSI IS A BIGOT
Corsi has written numerous bigoted, hateful comments throughout his career. Although he now claims to have apologized for his comments, they are so deeply offensive to Catholics, Muslims, and other groups, that he was dropped from promoting Unfit for Command, where he argued the untruths of the Swift Boat Veterans forTruth.
Corsi Was Dropped From Unfit for Command Promotions Because of His Anti-Muslim, Anti-Catholic
Comments. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote in an editorial, “Consider the book “Unfit for Command,” put out by a collection of partisans who have now made it acceptable for veterans to attack each other’s war records. The current National Review carries a piece decrying the bookstores that fail to carry “John O’Neill’s book.” This is curious in that the volume has a second author, but Jerome Corsi has dropped from the marketing because he has been revealed as the author of religiously bigoted remarks published on a Web site. Corsi not only considers Muslims to be pederasts, but he took the trouble to slam Catholic priests and refers to the Pope as senile. Rather than wonder whether a book written by such a man can be trusted, the marketing tactic has shifted to pretend Corsi doesn’t exist.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), 9/19/04]
• O’Neill Tried to Minimize Corsi’s Role in Unfit for Command After Bigoted Comments Came to
Light. “In a bit of historical revisionism, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth founder and Unfit for Command coauthor John O’Neill distorted Jerome Corsi’s role in co-authoring the book. O’Neill’s backtracking comes on the heels of Media Matters for America’s documentation of Corsi’s history of posting bigoted comments. During appearances on MSNBC’s Scarborough Country on August 10 and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports on August 11, O’Neill downplayed Corsi’s role in writing the book. When asked about Corsi’s involvement, O’Neill asserted, Corsi was “simply an editor and not really any sort of co-author.” But an MMFA item entitled “Unfit book materials show Corsi more than just an ‘editor,’“ revealed Corsi to be much more than simply an editor of the anti- Kerry book. [Media Matters Press Release, 8/13/04]
• “Anti-Kerry Book Author Apologizes for Slurs.” “One of the authors of a new anti-John Kerry bookfrequently posted comments on a conservative Web site describing Muslims and Catholics as pedophiles and Pope John Paul II as senile. In chat room entry last year on freerepublic.com, Corsi writes: ‘Islam is a peaceful religion – just as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered and the infidels are killed.’ In another entry, he says: ‘So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the lawyers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it’.” [AP, 8/10/04]
CORSI’S BIGOTED FREE REPUBLIC POSTS
To read more of his posts, follow this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=jrlc
CATHOLICS AND THE POPE
• “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the
• “So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywyers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it.”
• “Let’s see exactly why it isn’t the case that Islam is a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion? Where’s the proof to the contrary?”
• “Islam is like a virus — it affects the mind — maybe even better as an analogy — it is a cancer that destroys the body it infects.”
• “Islam is a peaceful religion as long as the women are beaten, the boys buggered, and the infidels killed.”
• “Think the liberal press will ever let out that these 2 were lovers — typical Islamic boy-buggering — older man, younger man — black Muslims? I doubt it. Not a pretty picture, but one certain to be hidden by PC media.”
• “RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women- Haters — it all goes together.”
• “First let’s undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy.”
• “Just don’t let anybody put a tablet with the Ten Commandments in front of the school where that girl wants to wear a Muslim scarf — OH, No — then the RATS would complain. Anti- Christian, Anti- American — just like their Presidential Candidate — Jean Francois Kerrie.”
• “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal
gradparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”
• “Kerry has a long history of Communist supporters.”
• “Kerry offers a clear choice. Anti-American hatred.”
• “John F-ing Commie Kerry and Commie Ted discuss their plan to hand America over to our nation’s enemies.”
• “When is this guy going to admit he’s simply an anti- American communist? Won’t he and his leftist wife simply go away???? Enough already.”
• “Hey, Bill, didn’t you steal enough when you had the chance?”
• “Clinton doesn’t get it. Afganistan, and other Moslim countries, are not poor because they lack money. The culture itself is anti-modern. But then, maybe Slick did get it and he just wants to create another bork barrel from which he and his wife can draw slop.”
• “Clinton was more interested in gays in the military than going after OBL. Clinton had Janet Rhino pushing the FBI to deport a child to Castro’s nondemocratic Cuba, not searching out OBL sleepers in the USA. Clinton was too busy getting BJs in the Oval Office to do more than Wag the Dog after the Cole was hit.”
OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE IN CORSI’S BOOK
In addition to the mistruths in Corsi’s book, there are a number of examples of highly questionable insinuations and insulting, offensive language in his book.
• “One fact that remains undisputed in the narrative is that Obama’s mother chose another third world prospect for her second husband, deciding to follow Obama’s Kenyan-born Muslim-raised father with an Indonesian-born Muslim, a second man of color to be her mate, this one destined to be Obama’s stepfather.” [p 43]
• “What Obama omits is that the liver disease that killed his stepfather was brought on by acute alcoholism, much as his father had committed what some would see as a car-assisted suicide.” [p. 48]
• “By returning to Indonesia alone and abandoning a son who refused to go back to Indonesia, Stanley Ann went ‘native,’ as many commentators have harshly suggested.” [p 49]
• “Even though Obama is not descended from a slave, the identity he seeks is African-American.” [p 63]
• “If Obama did not voice as much racial alienation with Kakugawa as he claims in the autobiography, perhaps their relationship was focused on drugs, a problem Kakugawa seems unable to shake, even today.” [p 76]
• “Obama’s black rage came from the books he read, a borrowed intellectual pattern he could place on his life.” [p 81]
• “Obama, like Fanon, assumes sexual attraction involves same-race consciousness.” [p 82]
• “Obama wants to will all the white blood out of himself so he can become pure black.” [p 91]
• “Obama and Ayers share more anti-American sentiments than Axelrod can afford the voting public torealize.” [p 119]
• “Obama distinguishes himself from his mother’s ‘pre-1967 liberalism,’ implying his leftist views came from the years during which the Far Left hardened. What made 1968 a dividing line?” [p 125]
• “There Obama began to realize that his form of rebellion contained within itself ‘its own excesses and its own orthodoxy,’ which is a candid admission that even rebellion reinforced by marijuana and cocaine was no longer enough for Obama.” [p 125]
• “‘Tony Rezko’ sounds like an Italian name you would expect to hear in Chicago. Antoin ‘Tony’ Rezko, however, is not Italian. Rezko is Syrian, born in Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city.” [p 155]
• “Now add one more factor: before Obama’s baptism at Trinity, when he was nearly thirty years old, there is no other life incident evidencing he is a Christian. Obama had to know that running for political office, even state office, would be much more difficult to do if voters suspected he was a Muslim. While there is no evidence Obama has ever practiced Islam, other than people remembering he attended mosque with his stepfather in Indonesia, the most likely conclusion was that his faith was unimportant to him, or that he was agnostic, maybe even an atheist. Yet once Obama became a member of Trinity, he had proof he was a Christian, as he professed to be.” [p 187]
• “Strangely, Obama seemed to be admitting that he himself harbored the same type of racial resentments Wright had been expressing for the twenty years Obama was a member of the congregation.” [p 197]
• “The staggering number of African American abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973 would suggest the ‘abortion on demand insistence of the political left is permitting genocide to be waged against blacks in America.’” [p 240]
Senator Barack Obama (D- Ill) might be gaining momentum, but Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY) is the most qualified candidate. Here are some of the people that are endorsing Senator Clinton.
Robert Kennedy jr. and Caesar L. Chavez
I always hear things that really irritate me, but there are several that bug me more than most. Of these things that I hear, the most irritating is the one that says President Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he failed to accept a Sudanese deal to hand over Osama bin Laden. It simply is not true, is based on zero fact, and is refuted by US Intelligence Agencies. Yet, talk radio (particularly Sean Hannity) and their conservative listeners constantly refer to it as though it is fact, conventional wisdom, even. Well, it isn’t. Here’s why…
We can start with Richard Clarke’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission. In his prepared statement, which he read publicly on March 24, 2004, he makes a point of not only disputing the claim, but he also makes the point that President Clinton really made counter-terrorism one of his top priorities.
While bin Ladin was in Sudan, he was hosted by its leader, Hasan Turabi.
Under Turabi, Sudan had become a safe haven for many terrorist groups, but bin Ladin had special status. He funded many development programs such as roads and dined often with Turabi and his family. Turabi and bin Ladin were ideological brethren. Following the assassination attempt on Egyptian President Mubarek, the US and Egypt successfully proposed UN sanctions on Sudan because of its support of terrorism. Because of the growing economic damage to Sudan due to its support of terrorism, bin Ladin offered to move to Afghanistan. Sudan at no time detained him, nor was there ever a credible offer by Sudan to arrest and render him.
He goes on…
CIA and FBI did not report the existence of an organization named al Qida until the mid-1990s, seven years after it was apparently created… The White House urged CIA in 1994 to place greater focus on what the Agency called “the terrorist financier, Osama bin Ladin.” After the creation of a “virtual station” to examine bin Ladin, CIA identified a multi-national network of cells and of affiliated terrorist organizations. That network was attempting to wage “jihad” in Bosnia and planned to have a significant role in a new Bosnian government. US and Allied actions halted the war in Bosnia and caused most of the al Qida related jihadists to leave. The White House asked CIA and DOD to develop plans for operating against al Qida in Sudan, the country of its headquarters. Neither department was able successfully to develop a plan to do so. Immediately following Osama bin Ladin’s move to Afghanistan, the White House requested that plans be developed to operate against al Qida there. CIA developed ties to a group which reported on al Qida activity, but which was unable to mount successful operations against al Qida in Afghanistan. CIA opposed using its own personnel to do so.
Former CIA Director George Tenet testified before an Inquiry Committee on October 17, 2002. Here is part of what he had to say…
Beginning in January 1996, we began to receive reports that Bin Ladin planned to move from Sudan. Confirming these reports was especially difficult because of the closure in February of the US Embassy as well as the CIA station in Khartoum for security reasons. We have read the allegations that, around this time, the Sudanese Government offered to surrender Bin Ladin to American custody.
Mr. Chairman, CIA has no knowledge of such an offer.
The 9/11 Commission concluded…
In late 1995, when Bin Ladin was still in Sudan, the State Department and the CIA learned that Sudanese officials were discussing with the Saudi gov-ernment the possibility of expelling Bin Ladin. U.S.Ambassador Timothy Carney encouraged the Sudanese to pursue this course. The Saudis, however, did not want Bin Ladin, giving as their reason their revocation of his citizenship. Sudan’s minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand Bin Ladin over to the United States. The Commission has found no credible evidence that this was so. Ambassador Carney had instructions only to push the Sudanese to expel Bin Ladin. Ambassador Carney had no legal basis to ask for more from the Sudanese since, at the time, there was no indictment outstanding.
So, there was an actual meeting between the US and Sudanese officials, held on March 8, 1996. Here is a memo, obtained by the Washington Post, about what the US wanted from Sudan. Notice, there is no desire to have Sudan render bin Laden…
MEASURES SUDAN CAN TAKE TO IMPROVE RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES1. Provide us with informaton (names, business associations and results of your investigation) on the owners and operators on specific dates noted of the following Sudanese license plates used in cars that surveilled US Embassy officers. Two incidents are described below:• . . . [From] 1-18 July 1995, a white Toyota pick-up truck, license number “1392,” was engaged in a coordinated surveillance operation against an Embassy officer’s residence in the al-Riyadh section of Khartoum. The Toyota coordinated the surveillance activities with a static surveillant posted nearby. During the same period, motorcycles without license plates regularly followed this officer from his residence to the Embassy.• On 26 March 1995, an Embassy officer left the Embassy and while driving north on Hariyah Street was surveilled by two light skinned males with thick beards and no hats driving south on Hiriyah street in a 1993 or 1994 four door Isuzu pick-up truck with plate number “KHA” or “LAM” 792 or 793. [Made a] . . . u-turn and took up a surveillance position approximately 100 meters to the rear of the Embassy officer’s car. [Didn’t stop until] . . . a demarche to your government protesting this activity2. Provide us with names, dates of arrival, departure and destination and passport data on mujahedin that Osama Bin Laden has brought into Sudan.
• Since mid-1994 your government has allowed more than 200 of Bin Laden’s operatives into Sudan
3. Provide information (names, numbers, photos) on passports/visas used by Egyptian Gama’at al-Islamiyya, Algerian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and Palestinian Islamic Jihad entering and leaving Sudan.
• Provide us . . . Gama’at members Mustafa Hamza, Izzat Abu Yassin and Husayn Ahmad Shahid Ali (AKA Muhammad Sirajl) – the three terrorists implicated in the attack against President Mubarak. (Your government claims that the three have left Sudan. We are convinced that, if true, your government has information that substantiates where they have gone and when.)
4. Bulldoze the Merkhiyat Military Camp located at the geographic coordinates 15-43-30N 32-24-07E, west of Omdurman. In the US demarche to your government in September 1994 it was noted that the US had specific evidence that this camp has been used to train HAMAS and other terrorist elements.
• Provide evidence that this camp has been torn down, such as allowing US officials to inspect the camp
5. Provide a presence list of all official and unofficial Iranians, including the 200 IRGC members publicly identified by senior Iranian officials in Sudan.
6. Reorient the Pan-Arab Islamic Conference away from its present role [as] a forum for meeting of various Islamic extremist groups engaged in terrorism.
In fact, as President Clinton’s National Security Advisor pointed out, they had no legal right to hold bin Laden even if he were offered by Sudan. An indictment was not bought against Osama bin Laden until 1998. President Clinton started bombing sites in Afghanistan in an attempt to kill bin Laden, but missed him by a couple of hours. His Republican critics in Congress accused him of using a “Wag the Dog” trick in order to distract the public from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. These are the same people who now say he didn’t do enough while he was President to kill bin Laden. Many people who are now beating the war drum criticized President Clinton’s focus on anti-terrorism. Here is an article from Salon.com dated Aug. 27, 1998, by Loren Jenkins, that makes my point even clearer…
“Our target was terror. Our mission was clear.”
— President Clinton, Aug. 20, 1998
To the litany of terrorist acts that President Clinton laid at the feet of renegade Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden in justification of his cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan and the Sudan last week, the administration has now alleged a murky plot to assassinate the president as well.
The alleged plot against Clinton was to have taken place when he was to have visited Pakistan. The anonymous intelligence sources that have made such an industry in bin Laden revelations this week acknowledge that the plot never went beyond the coffee-shop talking stage. But the charge helped to reinforce the president’s claims that bin Laden is “perhaps the preeminent organizer and financier of international terrorism in the world today,” and that there was “compelling” — if unrevealable — evidence that a network of terrorist groups he controlled was planning “further attacks against Americans and other freedom-loving groups.” At a time when presidential veracity is at an all-time low, one might have wished that the president and his national security advisors had laid out in detail just what was the “compelling evidence” that led the United States to launch some 75 missiles at two sovereign nations.
As it is, the public, both here in the United States and in the more critical world at large, is being asked to take a giant Kierkegaardian leap of faith in the president’s claims. Given Clinton’s recent track record in the “trust me” department, this is a lot to demand.
For while there is little doubt that bin Laden is a sworn enemy of the United States with the financial means to put some teeth in that enmity, his exact role in anti-American terrorism is unclear. The administration’s claims are based more on conjecture — mostly bin Laden’s own braggadocio and the bad company he apparently keeps — than hard and convincing evidence.
Clinton and his security staff have now blamed bin Laden for being behind almost every terrorist act in the past decade — from plotting the assassinations of the pope and the president of Egypt to the planned bombing of six U.S. jumbo jets over the Pacific, with massacres of German tourists at Luxor and the killings of U.S. troops in Somalia, fatal car bombings of U.S. military personnel in Saudi Arabia and this month’s truck bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam thrown in. Not since the ’70s heyday of the terrorist Carlos has there been such a Prince of Darkness, if the allegations are to be believed.
But so far, for all of the accusations, no government, not even that of the United States, has established enough credible evidence against bin Laden to conclusively prove his direct participation in, much less leadership of, any of the ugly plots and acts he stands accused of. To date no formal request for his extradition has ever been made, either to the Sudanese government that once housed him or to his current hosts, Afghanistan’s Taliban leaders.
Though it was suddenly leaked this week that a federal grand jury’s continuing investigation into the World Trade Center bombing in New York City in 1993 had belatedly handed up a sealed indictment against bin Laden in June, the indictment is understood to be only for “sedition,” that is, incitement to violence, not the violence itself. That is the same charge under which the Unites States previously convicted Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Trade Center bomber’s spiritual leader.
The only link between bin Laden and the World Trade Center bombing seems to be the fact that the mastermind of the bombing, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was eventually detained by U.S. agents while living in a guest house in Pakistan reportedly rented by bin Laden. The Saudi was also implicated in a failed 1994 plan to blow up American jumbo jets over the Pacific because the plot mastermind, Wali Khan Amin Shah, reportedly was a “close friend” of bin Laden’s.
If bin Laden’s fingerprints were to be found on any terrorist acts of the last decade, they should have been on the two attacks against U.S. military personnel carried out in the years when he was still living in his Saudi Arabian homeland. Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi engineering graduate who became a radical Muslim after joining the war against Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan in 1979, became virulently anti-American after U.S. troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War.
To him the American presence in Saudi Arabia, home of the holy Islamic sites Mecca and Medina, is a sacrilege he has vowed to reverse, along with toppling the “corrupt” Saudi royal family that has allowed it. Thus, when a car bomb exploded at a Saudi National Guard office in Riyadh in 1995, killing five Americans, and another blew up at the Khobar Towers Barracks in Dhahran a year later, killing another 19, bin Laden seemed the most likely suspect.
But neither the FBI, the CIA nor the Saudi intelligence services has ever been able to establish bin Laden’s links to those crimes after years of trying. What evidence that has emerged from those ongoing investigations points the finger at dissident Saudi Shiites, perhaps with the logistic support of the Lebanese Hezbollah organization, or even Iran.
Though much has been made of the fact that from his safe-houses in Afghanistan bin Laden has forged a loose alliance with perhaps a dozen different Islamic groups in the Muslim world from Algeria to Bangladesh, he seems to be more of a spiritual leader and financier than the sort of terrorist mastermind being alleged.
“Bin Laden is a true believer and a funder of Islamic causes, rather than a planner and active participant,” says Professor Shibley Telhani, a Middle East scholar from the University of Maryland who has followed his career. “His real influence is not as a mastermind of terrorism but as a person who is using a personal fortune to encourage others to wage war against the American interests in the Middle East he finds so objectionable.”
Indeed the sealed federal indictment just handed up, it would appear, is not based on any evidence directly linking him to either of those plots or others. Instead, it seems to have been motivated by a public call to arms against Americans that bin Laden published in the London Arabic newspaper Al-Quds al-Arabi last February. Issued as an Islamic Fatwa, or holy order, even though bin Laden has no religious authority whatsoever, the broadside by bin Laden and other signers from various Islamic groups called for Muslims to “kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military” wherever they find them.
These are strong words indeed. But they are words, not deeds. And though it is all too likely that those words have inspired others to such actions as the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam last month, bin Laden himself is unlikely to have personally ordered those bombings or carried them out.
Unless the Clinton administration can come up with some hard evidence that bin Laden is in fact calling the shots of a vast new anti-American terrorist network, all the present allegations and faceless intelligence-source leaks claiming facts too secret and explosive to be revealed should be taken with a grain of salt.
Bin Laden may be a dangerous anti-American zealot with a mouth as big as his bankroll. But the evidence so far does not support him being a cerebral Islamic Dr. No moving an army of terrorist troops on a vast world chessboard to checkmate the United States.
What the fuck people? What the fuck? I guess we needed two burning buildings in New York to prove President Clinton was right. There is a lot of revisionism going on, mostly by Clinton-haters on the right, who want to paint President Clinton as a failure and coward, but the facts simply do not substantiate those claims. These Whig historians look at that meeting on March 8, 1996 and pass judgement on it, knowing what they know now about the threat from bin Laden. In other words, hindsight is 20/20. What they fail to acknowledge, is that Clinton was prescient in his drive to fight terrorism, meanwhile the Republican party was obsessed with him getting a blow job from an intern and were hell-bent on impeaching him. They accused him of trying to distract from the Lewinsky scandal, but what he was trying to do was stop someone he believed was a major threat. Did he succeed? No. But he tried a lot harder to kill bin Laden than the Bush administration. Richard Clarke, the former Terrorism Czar, said in an interview with 60 Minutes that he, “wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently — underlined urgently — a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo– wasn’t acted on.” He also said, “We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.” When he finally had his meeting, it was in April with Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Secretary of Defense, who had little to no patience for the idea that a small band of Arab Muslims could ever harm America. “I began saying, ‘We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.’ Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, ‘No, no, no. We don’t have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.’ And I said, ‘Paul, there hasn’t been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!‘ And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, ‘Isn’t that right?‘ And he said, ‘Yeah, that’s right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'”
There was no Cabinet level meeting (in other words, with the President) until one week before 9/11. At the meeting, Clarke suggested that President Bush bomb sites in Afghanistan where bin Laden might be hiding. Following 9/11, Clarke says that he was asked by Bush to find a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. “The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.‘ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this. I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.‘ He came back at me and said, ‘Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.‘ And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.”
The FBI and CIA both looked into the possibility and wrote a report concluding that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. “It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?‘ They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer. … Do it again.’”
In the final analysis, Clinton did his damndest to kill bin Laden. Bush failed to act because he was surrounded by Cold War relics who did not want to continue a Clinton policy of counter-terrorism. I think after Bush leaves office, more people will come forward from his administration to admit these failures in judgement.
Six months after 9/11…
After winning the South Carolina Primary by a two-to-one margin, Barack Obama is poised to gain the endorsement of Massachusettes Senator Edward Kennedy as well as the endorsement of his niece (and daughter of former President John F. Kennedy) Caroline Kennedy.
Here is the New York Times article:
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Senator Edward M. Kennedy intends to endorse the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama during a rally on Monday in Washington, associates to both men confirmed, a decision that squarely pits one American political dynasty against another.
The expected endorsement, coming after Mr. Obama’s commanding victory over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Saturday, may give Mr. Obama further momentum in his campaign for the nomination.
As Mr. Obama flew here on Sunday, he smiled when asked by reporters about Mr. Kennedy’s plans, saying: “I’ve had ongoing conversations with Ted since I’ve got into this race.” He learned of Mr. Kennedy’s decision through a telephone call on Thursday, aides said, three days before the South Carolina primary.
Of all the endorsements in the Democratic Party, Mr. Kennedy’s is viewed as among the most influential. The Massachusetts senator had vowed to stay out of the presidential nominating fight, but as the contest expanded into a state-by-state fight — and given the tone of the race in the last week — associates said he was moved to announce his support for Mr. Obama.
Mrs. Clinton said Sunday that she had not expected to get the endorsement, yet aides conceded that they hoped Mr. Kennedy would remain neutral.
The endorsement will be announced at a rally at American University on Monday, hours before the State of the Union Address at the Capitol.
One day after defeating Mrs. Clinton in South Carolina by 28 points, Mr. Obama flew to Georgia to speak at a church service before traveling on to Alabama for a rally. Both states are among those holding primaries in the next stop in the Democratic presidential nominating fight on Feb. 5.
Mr. Kennedy, the latest in a string of senators to get behind Mr. Obama, is said by associates to be drawn to the Illinois senator because of his ability to motivate a new generation of Democrats. His niece, Caroline Kennedy, made a similar argument in an Op-Ed piece in The New York Times on Sunday.
“For somebody who, I think, has been such an important part of our national imagination and who generally shies away from involvement in day-to-day politics to step out like that is something that I’m very grateful for,” Mr. Obama told reporters on Sunday, referring to Ms. Kennedy.
During Mr. Obama’s three years in the Senate, he has worked to build allies and gain friendships with many of his colleagues. While Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Obama have not been particularly close, Mr. Obama quickly gained the admiration of the Kennedy family.
Besides providing Mr. Obama with an important boost for his campaign, his strong victory in South Carolina also raised questions about the Clinton camp’s strategy of aggressive attacks on him. But in an interview on Sunday on the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mrs. Clinton said she would not back off from taking shots at her chief rival’s positions, saying, “It’s important we draw these contrasts.”
“The idea that somehow someone’s record, someone’s words are off-limits, I’ve never seen that in American politics,” Senator Clinton added.
With each of the top Democrats having notched two primary victories, it appears increasingly likely that the party’s presidential nominating fight could extend well beyond the multistate primary elections on Feb. 5.
John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, received 18 percent of the vote in South Carolina. Despite the disappointing finish by Mr. Edwards, who was born in South Carolina, the former senator insisted that he will remain in the race. Mr. Edwards’s delegates could eventually play a key role in the fight between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton.
The next big contest comes on Tuesday in Florida. In the Republican race, Senator John McCain received the endorsement of the state’s popular Republican governor, Charlie Crist. On Sunday, Mr. McCain again assailed the Iraq policies of a top rival, Mitt Romney, castigating the former Massachusetts governor for having suggested earlier some sort of unannounced timetable for withdrawal.
“Governor Romney obviously said there have to be ‘timetables,” although they had to be secret,” McCain said on “Meet the Press” on NBC. “If we had done that, as the Democrats and some Republicans wanted to do, we would have lost that surge and al-Qaeda would be celebrating a victory over the United States of America.”
Mr. Romney has demanded an apology from Mr. McCain, saying the Arizona senator had been dishonest in his description.
The Florida primary could be critical for the Republican campaign of Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York mayor. Mr. Giuliani on Sunday predicted victory in Florida, seeing the large number of early absentee votes cast so far as a helpful sign and saying his tax-cutting promises were resonating with voters. As of Friday night, nearly 400,000 party Republicans had cast early votes, compared with the 200,000 who cast votes at this point in 2006. Florida is one of 37 states to permit early voting, and Mr. Giuliani has made an effort to get his supporters to vote early over the past month.
Democratic candidates are now taking their campaigns to states like California and New York for contests that hold vast numbers of delegates. Tuesday’s primary in Florida will play an unusual role in this election because the Democratic National Committee has said it would not seat Florida’s delegates because the state is holding the primary earlier than party rules apply.
Democratic candidates have not actively campaigned in Florida because of the party’s decision, but that does not mean a race has not been conducted by Florida supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. As of Friday night, nearly 350,000 Democrats had cast early votes — exceeding the turnout in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada — and party officials predicted that roughly 400,000 will have voted by election day.
Barack Obama wins the South Carolina Primary
According to the polls, Barack Obama gained roughly 55% of the vote, with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton splitting the remaining half with 18% and 27% respectively. Since African Americans are half of the registered voters in South Carolina, it was a crucial state for Barack to win in order to demonstrate that Iowa was not just a fluke. Today, 80% of those African American voters voted for Barack, with the remaining 20% voting overwhelmingly for Clinton over Edwards. He also picked up a quarter of the white vote, while Clinton and Edwards split the remaining two-thirds. Clinton picked up a disappointing 40% of women, while Barack and Edwards split the remaining 60%. Interestingly enough, six in ten voters were persuaded by Bill Clinton’s campaigning in the last couple of weeks. Over half of those white voters who decided within the last three days voted for Edwards, with the rest going to Obama and Clinton about evenly.
Here is the latest delegate count:
The Democratic nominee needs to win 2,025 delegates.
The Republican nominee needs to win 1,191 delegates.
The latest LA Times/Bloomberg Poll found that Clinton would fare best, according to registered voters, in a general election against any of the Republican candidates:
McCain 38%Clinton 49%
In a recent LA Times/CNN poll, Hillary Clinton was ahead of Obama in California:
Being that New York is the state that Clinton represents, she is expected to win that contest. Here are the results of a Times-Herald poll:
The results of a Rasmussen poll taken in New Jersey:
An IVR Poll in Texas:
Quinnipiac University conducted a poll in Ohio and found that Senator Clinton was ahead of Senator Obama:
I’m tired of writing this all out, so here is this:
Arizona Clinton 37% Obama 27
Alabama Clinton 43% Obama 28
Connecticut Clinton 41% Obama 27
Oklahoma Clinton 45% Obama 19
Utah Clinton 31% Obama 18
Missouri Clinton 44% Obama 31
Arkansas Clinton 57% Obama 17
Delaware Clinton 41% Obama 17
Minnesota Clinton 47% Obama 22
Tennessee Clinton 34% Obama 20
We should know who the nominee is by February 6.
And for the Republicans…
New Jersey McCain… 29 Romney… 14 Huckabee… 9
New York McCain… 30 Romney… 9 Huckabee… 8
Georgia McCain… 19 Romney… 16 Huckabee… 34
California McCain… 29 Romney… 17 Huckabee… 10
Arizona McCain… 40 Romney… 23 Huckabee… 9
Alabama McCain… 27 Romney… 15 Huckabee… 27
Connecticut McCain… 39 Romney… 11 Huckabee… 8
Oklahoma McCain… 29 Romney… 8 Huckabee… 31
Colorado McCain… 11 Romney… 8 Huckabee… 5
Illinois McCain… 31 Romney… 20 Huckabee… 11
Utah McCain… 6 Romney… 65 Huckabee… 2
Missouri McCain… 31 Romney… 21 Huckabee… 25
New Mexico McCain… 20 Romney… 7 Huckabee… –
Arkansas McCain… 9 Romney… 7 Huckabee… 59
Delaware McCain… 14 Romney… 10 Huckabee… –
Idaho McCain… 14 Romney… 38 Huckabee… –
Minnesota McCain… 22 Romney… 5 Huckabee… 2
Tennessee McCain… 12 Romney… 7 Huckabee… 24
These candidates all know who they are facing in the general election…
And Hillary knows it…
For the Democrats, if the results are close by the time the Convention rolls around, we may see John Edwards attempt to throw his weight around, albeit light. Barack and Hillary might begin courting Edwards for his support because he may very well be the kigmaker. He might be looking for a VP spot, to position himself for a future White House bid, or for some other important position. This is why Edwards has insisted that he will go all the way to the Convention.
Oh, and Rambo exceeded my expectations. It had an overly simplistic storyline, but the action and gore effects were fantabulous. I left with a smile.
The LA Times has published new poll numbers today. They show Hillary Clinton leading nationally, but Barak Obama is closing that gap. The poll also shows that John McCain is leading nationally, with Mike Huckabee in second and Mitt Romney a not too distant third. For a more in depth look at the results here is a link:
National Poll Numbers
Breakdown of issues in the Democratic and Republican Parties
A closer look at the Republican results