Obama hits back at critical author

Truth is a big problem for the radical left.

"that he was raised a Muslim, attended a radical, black church and secretly has a "black rage" hidden beneath the surface.

In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago."

Those are not contradictory statements. All could be true simultaneously. And probably are.

"Jerome Corsi is a discredited liar who is pedaling another piece of garbage to continue the Bush-Cheney politics he helped perpetuate four years ago," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Kerry still hasn't been able to do that yet or anyone else for that matter with verifiable facts.

I don't think Obama will gain any sympathy by lashing back in this manner.
First strike has been avoided too long. Unless he cries on national TV. LOL

In fact, Obama is a Christian who attended Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

We know. We know. We've all heard the tapes. The word Christian should be in quotes though.

depends on your definition of “Christian!”

Seems like the good Dr. Corsi scratched a scab off a sore that had not yet fully healed.

This time the Democrat flying monkeys are counter attacking immediately instead of waiting like Kerry did. That is probably better for them except they are drawing a lot of attention to the book which is already a number one best seller. It could work against them.

Ahhh, YES....MSNBC ....KARAOKE JOURNALISM @ WORK.....more talking/shrieking point(s) for the Shills NYT/WaPo/ABCNNBcBS/pBS from the DNC.

I heard that Jerome Corsi is a 9/11 Truther? Or is it a lie by Libs and Dems to ruin Jerome Corsi?

I have read B Hussein’s 40-page rebuttal and my opinion is that it is not going to do him any good. It covers a bunch of subjects that I am sure he doesn’t really want to talk about - such as his Muslim family background and what appears to be the questionable legal status of his parents’ marriage. Not to mention several pages about Rezko.

He would have been better off saying nothing at all.

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]

Okay......Saying nothing about whether Obama confessed to Islam at the time or since then.

arguing the author is a fringe bigot pedaling rehashed lies.

He sure doesn't like it when anyone says anything about him. He's overly defensive. He scares the heck out of me. Can you imagine how he would retaliate against anyone who crosses him? I shudder to think what he's going to do to FR!

He would have been better off saying nothing at all.

Can you tell The Chosen One is a rookie, making rookie mistakes???

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 THE MAYOR

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, 4/17/08]

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]

Have at.

Where did you find the 40-page rebuttal?

FIU Law Professor Stanley Fish, Wikipedia:

Criticisms of his work
As a frequent contributor to the New York Times[4] and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as well as one of the most recognized academics in the United States, Fish has been the target of wide-ranging criticism.

Writing in Slate Magazine, Judith Shulevitz reported that not only does Fish openly proclaim himself “unprincipled” but also rejects wholesale the concepts of “fairness, impartiality, reasonableness.” To Fish, “ideas have no consequences.” For taking this stance, Shulevitz characterizes Fish as “not the unprincipled relativist he’s accused of being. He’s something worse. He’s a fatalist.”[5]

Likewise, among academics, Fish has endured vigorous criticism. Renowned scholar R. V. Young writes,

“ Because his general understanding of human nature and of the human condition is false, Fish fails in the specific task of a university scholar, which requires that learning be placed in the service of truth. And this, finally, is the critical issue in the contemporary university of which Stanley Fish is a typical representative: sophistry renders truth itself equivocal and deprives scholarly learning of its reason for being. . . . His brash disdain of principle and his embrace of sophistry reveal the hollowness hidden at the heart of the current academic enterprise.[6] ”

Terry Eagleton, generally considered Britain’s most influential academic,[7] excoriates Fish’s “discreditable epistemology” as “sinister.” According to Eagleton, “Like almost all diatribes against universalism, Fish’s critique of universalism has its own rigid universals: the priority at all times and places of sectoral interests, the permanence of conflict, the a priori status of belief systems, the rhetorical character of truth, the fact that all apparent openness is secretly closure, and the like.” Hence, it is inherently self-defeating. Of Fish’s attempt to co-opt the critiques leveled against him, Eagleton responds, “The felicitous upshot is that nobody can ever criticise Fish, since if their criticisms are intelligible to him, they belong to his cultural game and are thus not really criticisms at all; and if they are not intelligible, they belong to some other set of conventions entirely and are therefore irrelevant.”[8]

In her essay “Sophistry about Conventions,” philosopher Martha Nussbaum argues that Stanley Fish’s theoretical views are based on “extreme relativism and even radical subjectivism.” Discounting his work as nothing more than sophistry, Nussbaum claims that Fish “relies on the regulative principle of non-contradiction in order to adjudicate between competing principles,” thereby relying on normative standards of argumentation even as he argues against them. Offering an alternative, Nussbaum cites John Rawls’s work in A Theory of Justice to highlight “an example of a rational argument; it can be said to yield, in a perfectly recognizable sense, ethical truth.” Nussbaum appropriates Rawls’s critique of the insufficiencies of Utilitarianism, showing that a rational person will consistently prefer a system of justice that acknowledges boundaries between separate persons rather than relying on the aggregation of the sum total of desires. “This,” she claims, “is all together different from rhetorical manipulation.”[9]

Camille Paglia, author of Sexual Personae and public intellectual, denounced Fish as a “totalitarian Tinkerbell,” charging him with hypocrisy for lecturing about multiculturalism from the perspective of a tenured professor at the homogenous and sheltered ivory tower of Duke.[10]

David Hirsch, a prominent critic of post-structuralist influences on hermeneutics, censured Fish for “lapses in logical rigor” and “carelessness toward rhetorical precision.” In an examination of Fish’s arguments, Hirsch attempts to demonstrate that “not only was a restoration of New Critical methods unnecessary, but that Fish himself had not managed to rid himself of the shackles of New Critical theory.” Hirsch compares Fish’s work to Penelope’s loom in the Odyssey, stating, “what one critic weaves by day, another unweaves by night.” “Nor,” he writes, “does this weaving and unweaving constitute a dialectic, since no forward movement takes place.” Ultimately, Hirsche sees Fish as left to “wander in his own Elysian fields, hopelessly alienated from art, from truth, and from humanity.”[11]