Posted on 06/27/2009 10:34:36 PM PDT by pissant
Look. a quote is a quote. Altering the words isn’t a quote.
It makes good grounds for spin but it is not a quote.
Whats the point?
HELLO!!! The public is busy working 2 & 3 jobs & many have lost jobs, in great numbers. They are not here on FR, reading & hearing all these facts.
We are gathering each & every fact - all in a very short, few months that 'The One' has been in office.
You do not seem to be understanding that the end game here is that we are doing the work & collecting the facta that the main stream media will NOT cover.
Our time will come to do that & we want EVERYTHING exposed, incuding the ghost writing that you think is not worthy of discussion.
Some of us think it is VERY important - so why not get with the program?
Here are two comments on this article at American Thinker that some of you might find interesting. :)
Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama’s ‘Dreams’ !!!!!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/breakthrough_on_the_authorship_1.html
<>
Comments section:
Posted by: Matchett-PI (Comment #34)
Jun 28, 08:04 AM
Let us also not forget that Obama plagiarized these words from the final pages of Jim (“God’s Democrat”) Wallis’ book:
“We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/441oqlsg.asp?pg=1
<>
Posted by: Kyle-Anne Shiver (Comment #26)
Jun 28, 07:25 AM
I’ve read Dreams 4 times. I haven’t read Ayers’ Fugitive Days or any others of his books. And I have much more of a big-picture mind than the attention-to-detail mind that Mr. Cashill displays in this tedious and concentrated research. But Mr. Cashill’s (and his cohorts’) research gives much additional credence to my own observations on Dreams.
I’ve read a pretty vast number of autobiographies, memoirs and autobiographical novels.
From my first reading of Dreams, I knew that it was far more fiction than actual memory. For one thing, the author is fixated on race from toddlerhood and obsessed with putting race into the framework of political theory. Dreams smacks from page one of a carefully constructed “story” made to fit an adult’s worldview. This is very much in evidence by the extraordinary detail given to early life experiences (as Mr. Cashill notes, even down to the eyes and eyebrows of characters). And the only references to other children come from school acquaintances. The author of Dreams portrays an unrealistic view of childhood, wherein the ONLY surviving memories of a grown man are with adults and classmates. No other children appear in this book. No children in a large multi-level apartment building, where Obama lived with his grandparents before his move to Indonesia.
The author of Dreams contends that he had prodigious insight from an early age, and suspiciously omits any reference to adult help with forming these extraordinary perceptions. Here’s Dreams, when Obama is 11, on the trips to a bar with his grandfather (the failed salesman, who bears an uncanny resemblance throughout to Willy Loman, from Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman):
Dreams; p. 78
“Yet even then, as young as I was, I had already begun to sense that most of the people in the bar weren’t there out of choice, that what my grandfather sought there was the company of people who could help him forget his own troubles, people who he believed would not judge him. Maybe the bar really did help him forget, but I knew with the unerring instincts of a child that he was wrong about not being judged.”
These were daytime visits to a bar, frequented by black men, who showered attention on a young Barack Obama, but instead of reveling in the attention and loving the goodies provided (cokes and snacks), this eleven year-old is sizing up the men, their crushed ambitions, their inner needs and putting political meaning in their situation.
What a heap of balderdash. Not once in the entire book does this always-serious, always perfectly attuned “child” have any genuinely childish thoughts or experiences or misunderstandings of adult behavior that rectify themselves with age. We, the readers, are asked to believe that Barack Obama was always — from day one — a sort of otherworldly, superior being.
This might be a tad believable, at least in a less-exaggerated fashion, if the man, Barack Obama, displayed even an ounce of this superiority off the teleprompter. But he doesn’t. He talks around in circles and invents people from whole cloth to a sycophantic press in fairy-tale fashion.
In Dreams, the only psychological evolution that takes place in the book are Obama’s thoughts on his race and its political implications. Every event, every supposed thought and action revolves around the theme of an oppressed minority and the deviousness of all white people. Obama exempts from his racial condemnation 2 white people: his mother and his grandfather. And throughout the book, Obama judges them all with an adult’s mind, never admitting to any genuine failings of his own, with the single exception of the schoolyard incident recounted by Mr. Cashill as being identical to one of Ayers’ own concoctions.
I see I’m going on too long, so I’ll close this with the one passage in Dreams that stuck in my mind from the first reading, as being incongruous and totally weird. It deals with Obama’s mention of “Frank” (who is Frank Marshall Davis, communist, self-told pedophile, formerly of Chicago, then residing in Hawaii). The author sums up all of his grandfather’s black poker buddies and bar pals as a group, pretty much all the same, with “one exception”: “Frank.” Frank is described as a poet of “modest notoriety,” whose anthology Gramps was said to have shown the young Barack. Squeezed into mundane accounts of meetings with this Frank, appears this strange appraisal from young Barack:
“The visits to his (Frank Davis’) house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand.”
Now that I’ve read extensively on Chicago politics and Hyde Park history, as well as reading more about Obama’s early political career, Jeremiah Wright and all the rest, I have come to conclude that the author of Dreams inserted this incongruous “memory” to fulfill the Chicago-pol requirement: “Who sent you?” If one is not thoroughly “connected” to the proper machine bosses in Chicago Democrat politics, one gets absolutely NOWHERE. But if Frank Marshall Davis sent you, and your coming there was a result of a “transaction” made in your own childhood, then who were the leftist Chicagoans who would boot you? Not many, I would dare say, most especially if you were also a close friend and protege of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a powerful figure in black Chicago politics and a man with many friends in very high local places.
This whole “story” was contrived from start to finish, in my personal opinion, done after the fact to specifically form the narrative upon which Barack Obama’s political career would be made.
Now, where in the heck is that long-form, valid birth certificate? The stakes grow with each passing day that proof be provided as to the Constitutional qualifications of our current president. No childhood “transactions” should be allowed to substitute. No narrative ought to be capable of upending the Constitution without a fight.
That’s my 2 cents’ worth on the matter.
Kyle-Anne
You make it sound like Cashill is a 9/11 Truther. HE IS NOT.
As you probably know (since you said you’ve read Cashill for years), he has investigated the downing of Flight 800 as well as Who Wrote Dreams? doggedly and convincingly, IMO. I’m hard pressed to identify any other “conspiracy theory” that he’s promulgated.
Who Wrote Dreams? began, as I understand it, as a theory that Jack has with deliberation expanded upon with citations. I completely buy it.
Are you saying that it doesn’t matter? Or that you don’t believe the premise?
Like you, I’m not sure that Who Wrote Dreams? will matter in the long run. 0zer0-bots will never believe it and the rest of us, whose eyes were always open to what this lying marxist wants to do to our Republic, probably will. I do know that as long as we have an 0zer0-syncophant media, no attention will be paid beyond forums like this one.
You sir are an idiot
I have more than enough grounds to oppose Obama based on known facts in plain sight. I don’t need any conspiracy theories about his books or, for that matter, his birth certificate, apparent peculiarities regarding both notwithstanding. If we want to beat this guy, we need to make people understand the damage he’s doing with his policies, not obsess over stuff that we can’t do anything about and which make us look like wackos.
If "me" (your post to me) isn't "you" (my post to you), then who are you and exactly how many of "you" are there? Just for future reference, of course.
Why, thank you!
Cashill has been flogging this story forever
Its not groundbreaking. It is aside entertainment
You are welcome
Obama likes to play word games too.
The “notion” that “me” and “you” are the same thing is disingenuous and lays the groundwork for all sorts misinterpretation
It's really not that hard.
"Obama likes to play word games too."
As do you. You keep on defending your "little leader". You and he, will be defeated in the end.
I’ve read that, too. Endowments at the time?
When you quote you quote
Oh ye little one. Grasp what you can.....
WTF did I ever defend Obama? why do you people insist an altering my words just because I dont think Cashills angle is fruitful?
Bow to the great Jack Cashill then.
I have other things to do.
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.