I have been investigating Politifact since June 25, 2008 and saving their stories to MHT files from September 2007 onwards, along with all the other sites that referenced them.
Watch the videos.
Posted on 07/22/2010 8:29:11 PM PDT by Polarik
Dr. Ron Polland recently completed a comprehensive research investigation into the controversy surrounding Barack Obama’s birth certificate. On June 12, 2008, nine days after Obama was nominated as the Democratic candidate for President, a scan image claimed to be his “original birth certificate” was posted on the Daily Kos, an ultra-liberal blog. It was also on this date that Dr. Polland looked at the image and thought, “This is not a genuine scan,” setting into motion the most intensive and exhaustive scientific evaluation ever conducted on a birth certificate facsimile.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Buahahahahahahahahahaha!
Cette Freepeuse P\pauvre est trajiquement confusee!
Est elle une femme fatalle?
Mauvaise, tes , tres mauvaise , D'Artagnon Polarik!
Possez vous un zot?
Il ya justification!
Ou est les chats Vikingesque?
Thanks bitt.
Why do you create this phony strawman about whether I believe the Clintons investigated him or not. I am sure they did ops research against him. The problem is that even if they found something could they use it? Depending on what they may have found, it could have the potential to splinter the Dem party. Obama had no problem playing the race card against Hillary. It worked in the beginning, but Obama barely limped across the finish line to defeat her.
Defensive? Dang. I was trying for more of a sarcastic tone. I’ll have to work on that.
Anyhow...
Check out what this person, it’s not important who, posted on earlier on the thread: “As we’ve recently learned, Obama’s middle name is Abdallah, so the Mohammed stuff is moot.” (post #127)
Perhaps they stated things too strongly and wish to retract that statement, but a reasonable person can take it to be a declaration that they believe something to be factual. If someone doesn’t think something is factual, they tend not to say they “know” it. Usually words like “allegedly”, “supposedly” or even simply “reportedly” get used.
For that matter, an opinion piece from half a world away sticking in such a line for use in an entirely unrelated editorial counts as “reported”? That’s someone flimsy ground, I’d say.
As for your other items, let’s pick one. Can you think of any other reason for Mrs. O to make a statement like that? Poor speechwriting? Pandering to cultural ethos? Intentionally screwing with you?
What did Kennedy mean when he said “Ich bin ein Berliner?” Was he actually declaring that he was ineligible for the Presidency because he was really a jelly donut? When has the SCOTUS ever ruled that a jelly donut can be President anyway? And when did John F Kennedy ever prove in a court of law that he wasn’t a jelly donut? I supposed America’s decline dates from the 60’s for a reason…
The point I was making for Miss Sophia777 was how people tend to fall into the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. That which supports what they want to believe is accepted with far less rigor than that which supports what they do not want to believe. This is unfortunately a very human failing and happens to people regardless of race, creed, gender, cat ownership, cigar preference or political persuasion.
I still say it cost millions and millions of bucks for the regime to buy hillary off.
I have been investigating Politifact since June 25, 2008 and saving their stories to MHT files from September 2007 onwards, along with all the other sites that referenced them.
Watch the videos.
And you noticed the person who posted it that provided a source in post #134, right?? Are you keeping up or are you a few posts behind still??
i found you courtesy of “sammy”. lol
:)
(crickets) chirp, chirp ;)
i wish i knew the origin of that photo
If the Democrat party is splintered, neither Hillary nor Obama could be elected.
You certainly put a lot of trust in Politifact conclusions, and what they still have on their website in 2010 from 2008. As accuracy goes, lets look very closely at Politifact conclusions as you take them as the veritable truth. From one of your Politifact hyperlinks that you provided in post # 190.
The title - “Barack Obama "openly supported (opposition leader) Raila Odinga during his visit to Africa in 2006." Politifact says this is false.
Oh really Loren and Politifact?
Politifact - Odinga attended some of Obama's events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama "openly supported" Odinga.
I see Politifact is being sly about Obama support for Raila Odinga by using the adverb “openly” in describing their friendly relationship. How many times did Odinga visit Obama in the United States? 3 times right? I’m just getting warmed up….
Pictures can speak a thousand words so they say. This is about as ‘open’ and in the public eye as you can get. So where is that Obama picture of him speaking into a mike with the Kenyan President Kibaki rallying the Kenyan people?
Obama was in Kenya for six days. Did he spend that many days in the other African nations that where on his travel itinerary in 2006? Politifact in their “debunking” left that particular factoid out.
I noticed your heroes at Politifact also left out Mr. Mark Lippert. You know the guy who ran interference for Obama’s 2006 Kenyan trip and his “Foreign Policy Advisor.”
Senator Obama to his Kenyan “cousin” in an email to him:
“Hello Bother” LoL! Hey Lorrie, why is this publicized email not mentioned by the Yahoos at Politifact? I remember this from 2008.
And
So where is the “openly” publicized Obama email to President Kibaki calling him ‘Brother“ ? I see that the St Petersburg Times/Politifact clowns left these two Obama emails out of their article. Gee I wonder why? /sarc
How about this one? “ Proof Obama backed Odinga Set up direct Senate contact for Kenyan opposition leader October 10, 2008”
And we can’t forget the recently released Andrew C. McCarthy book, “The Grand Jihad,” where he says,
“Obama undermined U.S. relations with a strong antiterrorism ally in an African region where al-Qaida operates. In 2006, he details in the book how Obama campaigned for a pro-communist candidate [Odinga] running against Nairobi's pro-American government – "in outrageous contravention of U.S. policy and, probably, federal law.
Obama spent six days barnstorming the Kenyan countryside in support of Raila Odinga, the socialist Luo who was seeking the presidency. Appearing with Odinga at campaign stops, Obama gave speeches accusing the sitting Kenyan president of being corrupt and oppressive, leaving the masses in poverty.
Obama's interference "was more than reckless," McCarthy writes. "It was borderline criminal (and that's being generous)." “
Ex-prosecutor: Obama's Kenyan activities may be 'criminal'
And Loren you do remember the Kibaki government spokesman Alfred Mutua harshly criticizing Obama after he made his University of Nairobi speech? Did Raila Odinga give Obama the riot act after his speech? I don’t think so.
I didn’t even look into the silly Politifact conclusion that Raili Odinga is NOT a socialist, and so much more. So Loren, is Obama a socialist? You Think? Birds of a feather flock together.
I concluded as so many other have that Politifact are a bunch of Obama Joun-O-lists and Cabalists lying for their girl Obama. As they put out 
hoods and their lower extremities ... 
Have you ever heard about the RACE CARD, especially in Washington, D.C. (District of Corruption)???
Bill Clinton said it himself, "Yes, if he is qualified"!
Soon after he exclaimed he was being faced with the RACE CARD, and both the Clintons went silent on the NBC issue and escaped down in the RAT hole!!
The RACE CARD was the very effective weapon to get the usurper into the W.H., and Nancy Pelosi did NOT have cojones to vet a black or a half black candidate and she is a key enabler in the Constitutional crisis we now are faced with, similar to the Honduras event. The Race Card is still very much alive today with reference to NAACP and Shirley Sherrod or the four men beer party "summit", etc.!!!
A more interesting question is, is she the real biological Mother???
I'd bet with you.
Thanks for posting this.
The Obama — Odinga connection is still not being covered.
***
U.S. aid to Kenya to push easing of abortion laws hit
Millions spent on new charter
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/21/us-aid-kenya-push-easing-abortion-laws-hit/
White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say
Obama Ambassador to Kenya Openly Endorses Proposed Pro-Abortion Constitution
http://www.lifenews.com/int1602.html
***
It just makes me sick to my stomach that our “free” press willfully chooses not to cover this.
So am I.
That which supports what they want to believe is accepted
_______________________
That’s complete BS, that may be the case with you, don’t ASSUME it’s the case with everyone. I question everything and I do mean everything. I’ve rejected some things regarding his birth, others I remain unsure of, some I am certain of for reasons I won’t ever post on the open forum.
Probably his Paki boyfriend.
Have you seen the polls. Around 60%, have questions about where he was born and his birth certificate. If that many doubt his truthfulness, that means they don’t trust him. That is a very good thing, He shouldn’t be trusted. His past is full of lies and is his present.
:)
I doubt it. That’s why she dumped him off all the time, but she never dumped his sister off. She kept her with her all the time. There was a reason Gramps raised Barry.
His obsession with killing babies is for population control. I could post dozens of links to back this up, but it’s Sunday and I have better things to do. He’s very big on population control as was his pal Ayers who said we need at least 25 million bumped off. But that was many years ago. I imagine that number he wants gone is now closer to 50-75 million. If they can get rid of the baby boomers with lack of health care via the Death care bill, and kill a big percentage of babies, they might reach that goal without it appearing it was really “m urder”.
You bet I noticed!
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you skipped post #138 or are just a few posts behind still.
Anyways, that was largely the point of my post #138 (with typos corrected).
“A throwaway line in an opinion article trying to draw a parallel for an election in Zanzibar, from a news site based in Tanzania.
Note that there are no references or support, just the statement. The article isn’t even about BHO, he’s just used as an example.”
Yet the article is referenced as support and gets referred to for it being “reported” that BHO also has the middle name of Abdallah?
Where did the writer of this editorial obtain this information? How do you know he didn’t just flat out make it up? Maybe you are making the wrong argument and the editorial is trying to say BHO’s a Muslim.
Tsk, tsk, mj.
Quoting out of context is also a logical fallacy.
What I wrote:
“The point I was making for Miss Sophia777 was how people tend to fall into the logical fallacy of confirmation bias. That which supports what they want to believe is accepted with far less rigor than that which supports what they do not want to believe. This is unfortunately a very human failing and happens to people regardless of race, creed, gender, cat ownership, cigar preference or political persuasion.”
I don’t seem to have mentioned you. Or even ‘birthers’. It’s a very human failing and happens to everybody.
One of the funnier things about ‘birthers’ though is how they’ve devolved into a situation similar to Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists.
They all agree that the official version is incorrect, but are completely unable to agree amongst themselves as to what actually happened. And because they often reject at least some of the nutty conspiracy theories, they think they are being intellectually rigorous and feel more confident about their own nutty conspiracy theories.
It’s rather humorous.
“If they can get rid of the baby boomers with lack of health care “
I always thought the same thing.
Plus, that would get rid of a majority of what is left of the Christians.
We can see how readily the young fell for the obama propaganda machine.
Did you watch all the videos?
Who’s insane?
The story doesn't have to be ABOUT BAHO, so your point is irrelevant. His middle name WAS reported to be Abdallah. They didn't have to provide an etymology. Yes, I wonder where they got this information, but the point remains that the author who wrote this story appears to be a legit reporter and not one of those mythical 'birther' creatures that are always blamed by faithers for inventing rumors about BAHO.
What you fail to acknowledge is that there is no 'official' version of BAHO's upbringing. The details have changed and keep changing as reported by legitimate news outlets, including details from those who are closest to BAHO. As far as 'agreeing amongst themselves,' it is unrealistic to expect skeptics to come to a concensus when Obama can't even provide a straight story. Like a faither, I presume you just take every new story from the BAHO camp for gospel even when it disagrees with the previous accounts?? That's much nuttier than any so-called conspiracy theory.
Allow me to recap for any Freepers coming in late:
Polarik: Politifact started the rumor that Obama’s middle name was Muhammed.
Loren: No they didn’t. And here’s evidence showing you’re wrong.
Red Steel: Well...Polarik never claimed that Politifact started the rumor.
Loren: Yes, he did. Very clearly. Twice.
Red Steel: Well...Polarik’s main point was that Politifact used the rumor repeatedly to obscure the eligibility issue.
Loren: No they didn’t. And here’s evidence showing that’s wrong too.
Red Steel: Well...um...ODINGA! That’s right, let’s talk about Odinga!! Obama loves Odinga! Here’s a picture of Obama and Odinga! And here’s two more images, and a couple of links, and an extended quote from one of those links, and some graphics. Middle name rumor? Who was talking about a middle name rumor? I’m not, because I’m talking about Odinga.
So that covers “Lie,” “Move the Goalposts,” and “Change the Subject” in the list of Birther debate techniques. If you don’t want to repeat yourself, your main two options for your next volley are “Conspiracy Pleading” (such as wildly speculating that Politifact conveniently scrubbed the internet of evidence that validates Polarik’s claim) or “Ad Hominem” (where instead of talking about Obama at all, you start talking about me).
On the other hand, perhaps the reason you didn’t respond at all to the evidence presented about the middle name rumor is because the only thing you’d have to say is that I was right. In which case, further debate on the subject would indeed be unnecessary.
And you appear to put a lot of trust in a guy who's presented precisely zero evidence to support his claim.
Like I pointed out in my post above, you appear to have decided to change the subject away from Polarik's claim about the middle name rumor. While it's a new and unrelated topic, let's see what we've got here anyway.
Politifact - Odinga attended some of Obama's events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama "openly supported" Odinga.
I see Politifact is being sly about Obama support for Raila Odinga by using the adverb “openly” in describing their friendly relationship.
OK, so Politifact said that there's no evdience that Obama supported Odinga while he was in Kenya. You disagree. So let's see what evidence YOU have.
How many times did Odinga visit Obama in the United States? 3 times right?
I dunno. Were they before or after he became Prime Minister? How exactly do you propose that is evidence of Obama supporting Odinga in the 2007 election?
I’m just getting warmed up….
I hope so, because what you've offered is weak sauce so far.
Pictures can speak a thousand words so they say. This is about as ‘open’ and in the public eye as you can get. So where is that Obama picture of him speaking into a mike with the Kenyan President Kibaki rallying the Kenyan people?
Oh yeah. Because Obama, standing next to a van and telling a small crowd about the importance of getting tested for HIV is an open political endorsement of Odinga for an election fifteen months later, because Odinga is standing silently in frame.
Obama was in Kenya for six days. Did he spend that many days in the other African nations that where on his travel itinerary in 2006? Politifact in their “debunking” left that particular factoid out.
And why is the length of Obama's stay in Kenya evidence of an endorsement of Odinga?
I noticed your heroes at Politifact also left out Mr. Mark Lippert. You know the guy who ran interference for Obama’s 2006 Kenyan trip and his “Foreign Policy Advisor.”
Senator Obama to his Kenyan “cousin” in an email to him:
“Hello Bother” LoL! Hey Lorrie, why is this publicized email not mentioned by the Yahoos at Politifact?
Seriously?!? It wasn't mentioned because they're fake. Really, really fake. I mean, I'm slightly amazed that anyone would honestly treat them as real.
You honestly think that Senator Obama writes sentences like "I will kindly wish that all our correspondence handled by Mr Mark Lippert." And "This will be for my own security both for now and in future." Anyone with an ounce of critical thought can tell that these things were written by someone who's not a native American English speaker. Which is strangely consistent with their origin: Jerome Corsi claims to have been given them by unnamed persons in Kenya. In fact, back in October 2008, Corsi initially claimed on the radio that he had a lot more emails, but after these two got rejected by the rational-thinking public, he never got around to producing the rest. I can't imagine why not. (Corsi was also supposed to bring copies of the emails to an appearance on Hannity a few days after his return. An appearance which suddenly got cancelled at the last minute when Corsi called in sick.)
So where is the “openly” publicized Obama email to President Kibaki calling him ‘Brother“ ? I see that the St Petersburg Times/Politifact clowns left these two Obama emails out of their article. Gee I wonder why? /sarc
Because they're so blatantly fake that not even any of the urban legend websites took the time to debunk them. The news websites that *did* mention them only did so for the sole purpose of mocking them.
How about this one? “ Proof Obama backed Odinga Set up direct Senate contact for Kenyan opposition leader October 10, 2008”
What do you mean "How about this one?" That's a link to a WND story about the exact same two fake emails. You're not just relying on fake evidence, you're repeating it.
Obama's interference "was more than reckless," McCarthy writes. "It was borderline criminal (and that's being generous)."
Ex-prosecutor: Obama's Kenyan activities may be 'criminal'
So McCarthy thinks Obama violated the Logan Act. It's a little odd how, as a ex-prosecutor, he's seemingly unaware that no one's been indicted for violating the Logan Act in over 200 years.
So to recap, your evidence that Politifact is wrong and that Obama really did support Odinga in the 2007 election is: 1) Odinga stood near Obama while Obama told a crowd about the importance of getting HIV testing; 2) Two fake emails; 3) Obama spent six days in Kenya; and 4) Odinga has traveled to the US. Oh, and some unsourced claims from an anti-Obama book.
Wow. Powerful stuff.
You mean this one?
It's fake. In fact, it's not only fake, it's an obvious joke. Which is immediately obvious to anyone who takes the two seconds to notice that the signatures on the document belong to "John Kennedy" and "Dudley Doright."
I don't follow. That is indeed how the Wayback Machine's listing for Politifact looks now and, I suppose, in December 2009.
But what about that image supports your claim that Politifact made up the middle name rumor and used it as a distraction throughout 2008?
I have been investigating Politifact since June 25, 2008 and saving their stories to MHT files from September 2007 onwards, along with all the other sites that referenced them.
That's very nice. But what supports the claim about the middle name rumor?
Watch the videos.
I have. You claim "After reviewing every story Politifact produced from January to December 2008...Politifact's entire focus was on the rumor that 'Obama's middle name is Muhammed'." Do you have any stories after June 2008 where they even mention that particular rumor? Do you have any stories other than the two in June that weren't in direct response to email forwards that were spreading the middle name rumor?
Later in the same video, you say that the rumor is a "BOGUS RUMOR started by Politifact." But you don't support that conclusion with any evidence. As I demonstrated, the rumor clearly preexisted Politifact's first article, and in particular, About.com's urban legends guy had already addressed the email rumor before Politifact ever touched it.
And still later in the same video, you point to a Snopes page where they reprinted an email rumor, and you treat that as if Snopes was actually ENDORSING the rumor. Were you intentionally trying to mislead your viewers, or did you honestly confuse a republished email as critical commentary by Snopes?
You’re absolutely right. Any literate child could recognize it’s a fake.
So what’s your excuse for falling for it?
Perhaps not. What makes your argument blow and weak is that Polarik “referenced” about others carrying Politifact's water above where you have ignored it. How many of the Obama Journ-O-lists used the Mohammed middle name to deflect from the real issue of Obama not being eligible for presidential office? How many in the print, blogs and TV media cited Politifact? How many parroted that Mohammed is not Obama’s middle name!? And other slight-of-hand tricks; as an example, playing up McCain eligibility issue to cover for Obama lack of qualifications? Rinse and repeat over again. How much of that does it take to saturate the news by the lefty talking heads to confuse the eligibility issue? Politifact had legions of Cabalists to carry their message like you. Hundreds to thousands of instances of repeating Politifact parrots. Look over here not there… look look! We want you to see this not that.
Red Steel: Well...um...ODINGA! That’s right, let’s talk about Odinga!! Obama loves Odinga! Here’s a picture of Obama and Odinga! And here’s two more images, and a couple of links, and an extended quote from one of those links, and some graphics. Middle name rumor? Who was talking about a middle name rumor? I’m not, because I’m talking about Odinga.
Have some more. Politifact is so utterly wrong. It certainly looks like Obama loves Odinga too. Obama to Raila Odinga in the email, “Hello brother” and closes with “faithfully” your Obama.
Check out Obama here standing behind his buddy and ‘cousin’ in the open campaigning for him.
Awwww, here are the two love birds again campaigning openly before the public. Are they going to kiss each other?
So that covers “Lie,” “Move the Goalposts,” and “Change the Subject” in the list of Birther debate techniques. If you don’t want to repeat yourself, your main two options for your next volley are “Conspiracy Pleading” (such as wildly speculating that Politifact conveniently scrubbed the internet of evidence that validates Polarik’s claim)
I kicked the field goal over those goal posts above. You know all the tricks of being an after-Birther and about Bs’ing. Gee, I hope none of it rubbed off on me from you. /sarc Conspiracy pleading? You do a yeoman’s job of covering up for Obama. Do they give awards for your efforts? If so, I'm sure you would be a shoe-in.
And you put lots of trust in an After-Birther organization that I easily took apart.
Like I pointed out in my post above, you appear to have decided to change the subject away from Polarik's claim about the middle name rumor. While it's a new and unrelated topic, let's see what we've got here anyway.
Actually, I addressed it although just not to your liking. And the post above, I kicked the ball over your goal posts.
OI dunno. Were they before or after he became Prime Minister? How exactly do you propose that is evidence of Obama supporting Odinga in the 2007 election?
What do you mean that you don't know? To "refresh" your memory, Odinga was running for Kenyan president in those photos, and Obama was openly campaigning for him.
I hope so, because what you've offered is weak sauce so far.
That 'weak sauce' has burned your source's credibility and argument.
Oh yeah. Because Obama, standing next to a van and telling a small crowd about the importance of getting tested for HIV is an open political endorsement of Odinga for an election fifteen months later, because Odinga is standing silently in frame.
Who are you kidding? Obama's only agenda on that day was HIV testing. LoL! Was that all Obama and Odinga said? After-Birthers say the darnedest things. Odinga was running for president alright in August of 2006. Obama and President Kibaki knew about it. It was no secret and besides, politicians like Obama and Odinga are always in campaign mode.
Seriously?!? It wasn't mentioned because they're fake. Really, really fake. I mean, I'm slightly amazed that anyone would honestly treat them as real.
Who says? Did it come to Dr. CONspiracy or Koyaan in a dream?
You honestly think that Senator Obama writes sentences like "I will kindly wish that all our correspondence handled by Mr Mark Lippert." And "This will be for my own security both for now and in future."
So you correspond with Obama and know his writing style? Although Obama is good at being a parrot at reading the teleprompters.
Anyone with an ounce of critical thought can tell that these things were written by someone who's not a native American English speaker. Which is strangely consistent with their origin:
I see you don't have anything that really refutes the emails other than what came to after-Birthers in their dreams.
So McCarthy thinks Obama violated the Logan Act. It's a little odd how, as a ex-prosecutor, he's seemingly unaware that no one's been indicted for violating the Logan Act in over 200 years.
The scofflaw Obama is a good first candidate.
I hate to say this but this picture just does not look right. Blow it up to 400 and look at the way the hair is in relation to the neon lights. It seems to me if this were a real picture that there would be a definite demarcation of the hair and the light bulb and not all that fuzziness. It’s the same with Ann’s hair too. The tie and leis match with the other grad pictues but the texture and coloring of the hair look really strange to me.
that picture, IMHO, was NOT photoshopped.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.