Exposing The First Birther [Who was the first person to say that Obama was born in Kenya?]

wordpress ^ | January 17, 2015 | Steven Goddard

[grundle]

Real Science

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

Skip to content

• Home
• 1871 Climate Superstition
• 1970s Global Cooling Scare
• About
• Alterations To Climate Data
• Bad Weather
• Below350.org
• Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS
• GHCN Code
• Greenland Meltdown
• Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
• Hide The Decline
• Historical References
• Ice Free Arctic Forecasts
• Maps and Graphs
• Northwest Passage
• Polar Meltdown
• Predictions By The World’s Greatest Scientists
• Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA
• The Bottom Line
• The Definitive Data On The Global Warming/Climate Change Scam
• The Holocaust Began With Gun Control – After A Shooting
• Tracking Climate Fraud
• USHCN Code
• Who Is Steven Goddard?

← Climate Scientists Have Gills

New York Times – The Ultimate Slimeball Newspaper →

Exposing The First Birther

Posted on January 17, 2015 by stevengoddard

Birthers are evil people who say that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. The first birther was almost certainly Barack Obama.

From 1991 to 2007, his literary agents promoted him as being born in Kenya. The only plausible place they could have gotten his bio from is from Barack Obama himself. There was no Internet in 1991. When someone wants a bio, they say “write a short paragraph about yourself.” It is implausible that his bio came from anyone else, or that his agents would have wasted time trying to pull together information about some recently graduated college kid’s birthplace and background.

Miriam Goderich of Acton & Dystel says that she didn’t do adequate fact checking, but she never said whose facts it was she was checking.

So why would Obama lie about his birthplace? If you ask that question, progressives call you a birther. (Queue in the usual progressive scumbags.)

1991

Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’

2004

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

2007

http://web.archive.org/web/20070403190001

[Fantasywriter]

Literary agents don’t sell their authors by lying about the most fundamental aspects of their bio. That is fraud. Plus the truth inevitably comes out. When it does the agent’s image is only slightly tarnished if he/she was lied to by the author, but is irreparably harmed if he/she knowingly lied and willingly participated in the deceit/false advertising.

It does sometimes happen that an author cons an agent into falsely promoting him/her on the basis of a biographical lie. I am unaware of any reputable agent that has knowingly participated in such a scheme/fraud. Acton & Dystel is an established and highly regarded agency. They would not risk the fallout of knowingly promoting a wholesale fraud. [The book they pitched to Obama was Journeys in Black and White, and had Obama’s Kenyan birth as its starting point. To base the entire book on a fraud is not consistent with Acton & Dystel’s solid, well-respected reputation.]

[Fantasywriter]

They secured a large advance for Obama to write Journeys in Black and White, which began with Obama’s Kenyan birth. When he failed to produce the ms, they secured a second large advance for the same book. This is a matter of record.

[Fantasywriter]

‘They’ = Acton & Dystel

[CpnHook]

A literary agent's job is to sell an author. Obviously, Miriam Goderich thought Obama would be more salable if Kenyan-born than American-born.

It still strikes me as an odd going-only-halfway measure. Selling an author" means selling books. So A&D pushed the exotic just as to the publisher but not the book-buying public? Maybe so. It's just not a convincing theory.

In any case, the Acton&Dystel bio card is always taken out of context (that being Obama telling the national media in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii) and badly overplayed. Though I suppose I understand the need of those pushing the Kenyan birth narrative to seize on it and not let go: if they didn't have the bio to waive, they'd not have much of anything.

[Fantasywriter]

‘they’d not have much of anything.’

Oh really?

How about for starters the fact that Obama is a pathological liar. When it comes to so notorious and disordered a liar, what makes more sense: to question his various stories, or to buy them hook, line and sinker?

Or do you not admit that Obama lies pretty much every time his lips are moving?

[CpnHook]

They secured a large advance for Obama to write Journeys in Black and White, which began with Obama’s Kenyan birth.

In 1990, it was reported (based on interviews and/or input from Obama) by the NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and L.A. Times -- four of the widest circulation and top-echelon newspapers in the U.S. -- that Obama was "born in Hawaii." As of 1990, Obama's Hawaiian birth was thus a matter of public record.

But you can't see why in 1991 the idea of Obama producing a "born in Kenya" book is thus a total non-starter, a proposition that would make Acton & Dystel look utterly foolish?

Your lack of critical thinking skills continues to amaze.

[Fantasywriter]

‘But you can’t see why in 1991 the idea of Obama producing a “born in Kenya” book is thus a total non-starter, a proposition that would make Acton & Dystel look utterly foolish?’

The fact of Obama being paid trice to produce a ‘born in Kenya book’ is not my idea. It is what actually happened. You are the one struggling with the facts, not I.

As far as the agency’s position goes, they’ve explained it well enough. Acton and Dystel admitted they acquired the “fact” that Obama was born in Kenya. To maintain it for what—iirc, 16 yrs—in printed form can only mean that they saw excellent documentation for that “fact.”

[cynwoody]

In any case, the Acton&Dystel bio card is always taken out of context (that being Obama telling the national media in 1990 that he was born in Hawaii) and badly overplayed.

It's too good to pass up. Especially, that it got corrected just as he was gearing up to run for president.

Miriam Goderich says it was a fact-checking error by her. But the fact remains, she must have got the idea in her head somehow, and Obama failed to set her straight.

[CpnHook]

Oh really?

Yes, really. Take away the A&D bio (the one intended for circulation to just a smattering of publishers and that was in all probability largely ignored until someone at Breitbart wrested it from obscurity) and the "born in Kenya" narrative is at the near complete evaporation point.

Whereas, by contrast, the "born in Hawaii" narrative has a host of both documentary and testamentary evidence, most of which doesn't come from Obama. And, of course, chief among these are the certificates and verifications from the state of Hawaii. For after all, state certification is what we all use to demonstrate birth facts, right? And state records are the thing that come with Constitutional significance under the Full, Faith & Credit clause, right?

But,I know,these are things you cannot acknowledge or discuss because they make your position very hard to sustain.

[Fantasywriter]

Oops; you missed the most important part the post:

“How about for starters the fact that Obama is a pathological liar. When it comes to so notorious and disordered a liar, what makes more sense: to question his various stories, or to buy them hook, line and sinker?

Or do you not admit that Obama lies pretty much every time his lips are moving?”

[CpnHook]

It's too good to pass up. Especially, that it got corrected just as he was gearing up to run for president.

Which is consistent with my view that no one had reason to pay much attention to the thing before then.

But the fact remains, she must have got the idea in her head somehow,

How about the idea "born of a father from Kenya" (i.e., having a Kenyan heritage) got conflated to "born in Kenya?" as this was all short and simple and not something commanding much scrutiny given the limited audience and purpose?

I know people have a great need to find a furtive, cynical motive in these things. But often the innocuous one is much simpler. Hello, Mr. Occam.

[DiogenesLamp]

Obviously, somebody descended down into the stacks, found the volume containing the long forms for August 1961, took it off the shelf, turned to Obama's form, pressed it down onto the copier, made two copies, then signed and stamped them. Duh! Those copies are what they turned over when Ms. Corley showed up to collect them!

I have a different theory. Back when I was keeping up with this issue, I noted seven different bits of evidence which indicated that Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro back in 1964 or so.

The normal process in such cases is for a court to place the original under a court seal, and order the issuance of a replacement birth certificate. When Barry went to live with his grandparents ~ 1970 or so, some form of legal guardianship had to be created. It has been proposed that Obama Sr showing up in 1971 at the same time Stanley Ann just happened to be visiting from Indonesia, was there for the purpose of asserting his parental rights and annulling the previous adoption.

If this be the case, then another court order would issue for another seal and another replacement birth certificate, or perhaps just a COLB.

My theory is that what we see as the "official" birth certificate is nothing but a computer generated replacement birth certificate designed to look like one from 1961. There are issues with it that have nothing to do with layers. One of the most prominent is the spacing of letters. Some are off horizontally and some are off vertically. A typewriter cannot do this unless someone loosens the rollers from the platen. Given the numerous examples of where characters don't line up properly and in so many different places, it is improbable that someone would have removed the document or loosened the rollers from the platen so many times.

The most glaring problem with it is the certification which is *NOT* the certification Hawaii used in 1961. In 1961 Hawaii certified birth certificates by saying "...true and correct copy of the original document..."

Nowadays they say "True and correct copy of the document on file or an abstract thereof." Basically a meaningless certification.

The 1961 statement was unequivocally and unambiguous. The modern certification just means that it says the same thing as the documents *THEY PLACED* in their files.

[CpnHook]

You are the one struggling with the facts, not I.

The key fact here is that as of 1990, Obama's "born in Hawaii" narrative was a matter of public record due to national media reporting. That's fact.

Whether and to what extent in 1991 Acton & Dystel wished to urge some contrary "born in Kenya" narrative is of no moment, as the notion was obviously a non-starter even in theory at that point, and in actuality one that went nowhere.

No problem with facts at my end: the "project that wasn't" didn't alter the public record that Obama was born in Hawaii.

[Fantasywriter]

No mention of the father; it’s all about Obama Jr:

‘“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.Vetting34

He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago’s South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.”’

But to get back to the pathological liar issue. It really is foundational to the whole discussion. If, on the one hand, Obama had a long and solid history of telling the truth, one would still find the many contradictions and anomalies in his records troubling. Yet one would give an honest person the benefit of the doubt, and try hard to reconcile his various issues.

But when a man has proven himself to lie pathologically, to lie when he speaks, to lie without compunction or guilt of any kind, that does make it different. In fact, it makes all the difference. Unless and until you, CpnHook, can admit that Obama’s lying is such that it indicates a serious underlying personality disorder, there will always be a fundamental disconnect. You will be defending what you believe is an honest man of integrity, while I will be discussing a pathological liar. There is no way those two narratives can even overlap, much less find resolution.

[Fantasywriter]

‘the notion was obviously a non-starter even in theory at that point, and in actuality one that went nowhere.’

Read the copy again. The book is well described, and Obama was paid twice to write it. He wrote nothing at all during the time frame when he burned through the first advance. This is a matter of record.

Acton & Dystel then secured a second advance for the same project: Journeys in Black and White. Again Obama wrote nothing. He is a lazy, dysfunctional person who can’t write even on the middle school level, much less complete a book. Acton & Dystel, along with the editor that was snookered into paying the first advance, learned this the hard way. (The second editor may fall into the same category; I’d have to check the facts to see whether the Ayers-produced work of fiction went to them or to someone else.)

You’ve struggled mightily with this factual account of Obama’s literary malfeasance. You continue to trip over the facts, and likely always will.

[CpnHook]

Oops; you missed the most important part the post:

Given the issue is eligibility and given that most of the evidence of Obama's Hawaiian birth comes from sources other than Obama, then your point isn't the most important. It's irrelevant.

[Fantasywriter]

The one thing I have noticed about liberal leftist Obot trolls: they will NEVER admit that Obama is a liar, much less a pathological liar. This is how you can tell the conservative anti-birthers from the liberal trolls. A conservative anti-birther will readily admit that Obama lies, and lies with virtually every word he speaks. A far left Obot troll, posting dishonestly on a conservative site, will never call Obama the bold-faced pathological liar that he is.

[Yosemitest]

"How about the idea "born of a father from Kenya" (i.e., having a Kenyan heritage) got conflated to "born in Kenya?"... "

You Obama supporters really are marked with A POWERFUL DELUSION.

Read this excerpt:

... However, evidence to indicate that Obama war born in Kenya is plentiful and it goes significantly beyond the 1991 version of the brochure.


- Despite claiming the passage about Obama’s birthplace being Kenya was a mistake,
the listing still maintained that Obama’s birthplace was Kenya until after Obama became a U.S. Senator.
“Goderich’s statement fails to explain why the “fact checking error” persisted for sixteen years, through at least three different versions of Jane Dystel’s website, and through at least four different versions of Obama’s biography,” reports Breitbart.com.

- The literary agency also updated the text in June 1998, but the part about Obama being born in Kenya was retained.

- The text was again updated in February 2005 to reflect the fact that Obama had become a Senator, but Kenya was still listed as his birthplace.

- After an April 2007 modification of the text, the passage still read Obama, “was born in Kenya.”

- As Steve Boman reveals, the Dystel & Goderich agency asks its clients to submit their own biography, meaning it’s virtually impossible the listing of Obama’s birthplace as Kenya could have been a “fact checking error” on behalf of the literary company itself.

- During a speech about HIV, First Lady Michelle Obama said she and Barack Obama “visited his HOME country of Kenya.” Watch the clip below.


Michelle says Barack's Home country is Kenya - full statement ( 0:31 )


- In 2008, Obama’s paternal step grandmother appeared to indicate publicly that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
In an interview conducted by American Christian minister Ron McRae, Sarah Obama was asked,
‘Were you present when your grandson was born in Kenya?’ ”
McRae testified in his sworn statement.
“This was asked to her in translation twice, and both times she replied,
“Yes! Yes she was!
She was present when Obama was born.”

- Another source who met Sarah Obama told World Net Daily,
“I have keenly and attentively listened to the tape over and over again,
and I can confirm from Sarah’s own confession that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in her presence.”

- A separate Kenyan government official agreed, stating,
“I have listened to the tape.
The preacher asked whether Barack Obama was born in Mombassa, and the translator asked the same.
When she said Mombassa, it was like a surprise, and those there thought she could not have meant to say Mombassa.”

- When New York Times bestselling author Jerome Corsi traveled to Kenya to investigate the claims, he was almost immediately kicked out of the country by Kenyan officials.

- When Kenya’s National Security Intelligence Service investigated claims that Obama was born in Kenya, officials in Nairobi found “relevant birth records may have been removed or were missing.”

- Obama has deep political connections in Kenya.
From 2006 onwards he rallied in support of Islamist Raila Odinga in Kenya, helping him impose Sharia law.
When Odinga lost the Kenyan election in 2008, his supporters rioted, unleashing a wave of violence.
Despite the bloodshed, Obama used his influence to aid Odinga in retaining his position as part of a coalition government.


Obama and Odinga Campaign in Kenya ( 4:01 )



For the mainstream media to IMPLY
that the 1991 brochure is the “source” of the claim
that Obama was born in Kenya IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE.
Not only was that brochure updated many times right up until 2007,
with the information about Obama’s birthplace being Kenya RETAINED,
but there are NUMEROUS OTHRR FACTORS which ALL INDICATE that Kenya could indeed be Obama’s homeland.

[CpnHook]

You will be defending what you believe is an honest man of integrity, while I will be discussing a pathological liar.

No. NO. NO! I've told you before (and have made similar statements to others on this forum since 2013) that I am not defending "a man." I am defending either of two things pertaining to what are generally termed "Birther" or "eligibilty" issues: a) that as to his birth, there is (i) both documentary and testamentary evidence spanning a period of 50 years that all mutually corroborates BHO,II's claim of Hawaiian birth and (ii) no credible, if any, evidence of him being born in any other place, thus by any reasonable standard of evidence and proof, consistently applied, the case for Hawaiian birth stands proven; and (b) there is no "two citizen parent" requirement for Article II "natural born citizen." Precious little in proof of (a) turns on Obama's credibility. And absolutely nothing in (b) does. Yet at every turn you ignore the main points I make and keep trying to drag things into a discussion on Obama's veracity. Yours is one continuous strawman argument.

[cynwoody]

How about the idea "born of a father from Kenya" (i.e., having a Kenyan heritage) got conflated to "born in Kenya?" as this was all short and simple and not something commanding much scrutiny given the limited audience and purpose?

Indeed. That's how "stuff" happens.

But do not forget: the fish rots from the head down, and the head failed to arrest the rot!

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan! And that's who we're dealing with!