Posted on 04/10/2010 12:18:01 PM PDT by howkn
Because that's not true. The Executive Order in question has nothing to with his private records, which are protected by the same privacy laws as anyone’s.
He didn't. This is just another one of Manning's delusions.
I was largely referring to the claim that he was hired by the Reagan administration as a CIA operative to go agaist the Soviet Union. As for one particularly bit of 'proof' of the insanity of this, we are personally experiencing (today) Obama's selling our national security out to the Russians (and ChiComs).
What kind of information must be included in the Bar application? All information you disclose on the bar registration application should be consistent with answers to questions on your Application for Admission to the law school. Please note, however, that the bar registration application asks for a considerable amount of information that you were not asked to provide on our Application for Admission to your Law School.
You need to be concerned about the consistency of your answers for questions asked on both forms.
Oh, so you have ‘No comment’ about Manning’s claim that Obama lied about attending Columbia?
I referred to it as "potentially legit". But if he's going to say at the same time that Obama was a CIA operative under Reagan against the Soviets, who in their right mind is going to believe the "evidence".
‘Who in their right mind’, Alinsky 101
From the New York Times:
"He barely mentions Columbia, training ground for the elite, where he transferred in his junior year, majoring in political science and international relations and writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament. He dismisses in one sentence his first community organizing job — work he went on to do in Chicago — though a former supervisor remembers him as 'a star performer.'"
[snip]
"he [Obama] declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years.
'He doesn’t remember the names of a lot of people in his life,' said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman."
Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say
By JANNY SCOTT, October 30, 2007:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?ex=1351396800&en=631bf83f428647f9&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss
Another area of fraud would be if he lied on his application to Harvard Law by stating he had a valid Undergraduate degree from Columbia University. So again, if it’s proven that Obo lied about attending Columbia, then he lied to Harvard Law. Which then means he would have lied on his IL Bar application, etc.
Now if only those "leaders" who feel bound to abide by these would learn this simple fact about our Nations's government.
Well said. Just excited that Manning is including it as it fits obo’s lifelong mo of hiding his past.
There have been many moles within the Agency and some with knowledge by senior officials that the recruit is a Marxist mole wannabe.
Such undesirables are allowed because they are able to establish credibility with enemy agents and in so doing they provide information to the Agency that would not otherwise be retrievable.
The young pro-Soviet Marxist Obama who was in college would be an acceptible recruit for the Agency because he could with his knowledge of Muslim customs and Marxist ideology be put into the Afghan theatre and be watched.
This is not nonsense. It is more SOP than anyting else.
Your argument is thus:
“Obama was pro-Soviet, THEREFORE he could not be an operative for the CIA.”
The contrapositive of your argument is:
“If Obama was an operative for the CIA, then he was not pro-Soviet”.
And the disjunctive equivalence of your argument is:
“Either Obama was not an operative for the CIA or he was not pro-Soviet”.
And as you assert that Obama was pro-Soviet, you deduce that he was not an operative for the CIA, THEREFORE Manning is out of his mind.
However, each logical version of your argument is invalidated by the counterexample:
“There exists persons who are operatives for the CIA and who are pro-Soviet”.
Hence, none of your argument is true in all circumstances, i.e ...it don’t hold water.
If a university receives any funding from the federal government, they are bound to federal regulations and also federal privacy laws.
Not in the least bit likely against the Soviet Union.
for sure one thing the head cheese hasn’t planned for is when he leaves office to build his Presidential Library with tax dollars. Will he fudge his origins there,too? i’m sure he will you have to keep the deception going don’t ya?
for sure one thing the head cheese hasn’t planned for is when he leaves office to build his Presidential Library with tax dollars. Will he fudge his origins there,too? i’m sure he will you have to keep the deception going don’t ya?
Fudge his origins? By that point he'll be saying he was born in a manger and visited by three wise men who left gifts of gold and Myrr.
"Obama ain't nothing but a long-legged Mack Daddy!"--Rev Manning
Seriously, all anyone has to do is go to Manning’s website to see that he’s a nutcase of the highest order. Here’s an example; “However, Almighty God has raised up The Honorable James David Manning, as the Priest for this generation to speak a word of deliverance unto them. That word is called, ATLAH - the land of The Great Light People. God is returning world power to the dark-skinned, kinky-haired people, and when they rise, they shall institute a level of superiority that cannot be denied nor rivaled by the existing world. “
In the context of an Agency contract, it doesn’t matter if he was for or against the Soviets.
The Agency employs many rabble rousers, students sporting T-Shirts of “Che!” and so on. It does this for its purposes.
The Agency also employs many little old ladies with blue hair as well as small-framed janitors with speech impediments.
The Agency makes it their business to employ people from all walks of life so that no one will suspect who is an agent.
Many college professors are agents.
Many international shippers are employees of the Agency.
And so on.
The point is your argument doesn’t cut it, and that’s a fact.
Now as to Manning, his argument may not cut it as well. But we are going to hear his evidence.
But you know what? Even if Manning’s evidence doesn’t cut it, we need to back him because the socialists in the media are going to attempt to smear him, disparage him and we need to show the media the middle-finger salute, and tell them don’t even bother trying to divide us.
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.