‘To me, it makes no sense to get nationwide publicity in the major newspapers in 1990 all saying Hawaii is the place of birth and then a year later to have a minor bio in a publishing industry only blurb list a different place of birth.
In any event, two years ago The literary agent said that it was her error and its difficult if not impossible to prove otherwise 23 years after it was published.’
Why are otherwise intelligent people willing to look like drooling morons in order to stand up for this pathologically lying monumental failure of an effete president??? Please try to momentarily think about this as a non-stupid person, as opposed to an Obot. Please.
Now, here is the situation. Obama did not approach this literary agent. She approached him and pitched a book proposal. The working title was Journeys in Black and White. Here is the idea in a nutshell:
A boy is born in Kenya to mixed race parents. He is raised in Indonesia and HI. He ultimately rises to become the first ‘African-American’ president of the Harvard Law Review.
Obama and the agent had to agree on this book proposal. Otherwise she could not have obtained a six-figure advance for Obama to write said book—which she did. So both of them were well aware of the crucial element re: the starting point of these ‘Journeys in Black and White’ - Kenya.
Now what exactly are you saying? That the agent made the entire pitch, both to Obama and to the publisher, on the basis of a fact check error? Can you honestly believe that? Really???
The only possible scenario is that the agent knew of Obama’s Kenyan birth prior to approaching him originally. If you say she was misinformed, then how do you explain Obama’s going along with her. Did he not know it was fraudulent to represent himself as born in Kenya if he wasn’t? Why would he accept a large [for that time frame, and particularly so considering he hadn’t published squat to date] advance for writing a book that took the born-in-Kenya/out-of-Africa theme as its starting point?
NG, you are smarter than this. Don’t pass yourself off as a moron. Come to grips with the facts. At the least Obama participated in fraud. Far more likely, he participated in the truth.
It is just fine with me that you have your beliefs about the literary agent’s statement. Its your belief versus her statement.
I’ve already made my point, “Obama born in Hawaii” was in major newspapers in profiles where he was actually interviewed as new President of Volume of the Harvard Law Review a year before the publisher’s blurb. That’s my point and its an indisputable fact since anyone can read those profiles online.
It is my opinion that folks in the “Obama is ineligible movement” are unwitting dupes for Obama due to chronic cases of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
The birther issue helped Obama get elected and reelected. Liberals love victimization and Obama gets to play the victim, as recently as earlier this week in the incident that this thread is concerning.
It is Obama who solidifies his base by pointing out how those evil, racist conservatives don’t believe that he was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961 and it has worked like a charm for him for seven years now (Obama announced his candidacy in February, 2007). No one has presented probative evidence of an alternative scenario to any Trier of Fact, anywhere in the United States.
There have now been 335 lawsuits and appellate rulings on Obama’s eligibility. The “Obama is eligible” position has prevailed in every single one of those judicial rulings.
I’m with Sarah Palin on this issue. She speaks for me: “I don’t question Obama’s faith and his citizenship and those are distractions. What we (conservatives) are concerned about is the policies coming out of his administration in terms of big government versus private sector. So the faith, the birth certificate...others can engage in that kind of rhetoric. Its distracting, it gets annoying and let’s just stick with what really matters.”
Amen, Sarah, amen. You are now free to call Governor Palin an unintelligent Obot for disagreeing with your opinion.
The situation includes the context; namely, that the year or so prior to the literary agent's arrival on the scene, there had been national media coverage about Obama being the first black Harvard Law Review president and noting his Hawaiian birthplace. Nero twice reminded you of this; twice you ignored it in your desire to apply tunnel vision to the agency's author pamphlet.
Obama did not approach this literary agent. She approached him and pitched a book proposal. The working title was Journeys in Black and White. Here is the idea in a nutshell:
A boy is born in Kenya to mixed race parents.
You show there is no significance to the pamphlet/bio when you posit the agent was the source of the "born in Kenya" phrase. When the national media (NY Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune) reported that Obama was Hawaii-born the year prior, clearly the source for that was Obama. If the agent came to the table believing "born in Kenya," the agent was mistaken -- at odds with what Obama had just earlier stated.
He is raised in Indonesia and HI. He ultimately rises to become the first ‘African-American’ president of the Harvard Law Review.
Isn't that the narrative? That a person with his mixed racial background and non-traditional upbringing ends up president of the HLR? "Born in Kenya" isn't necessary to that. "Dreams" itself doesn't state BHO II was born in Kenya, which is an odd omission if that was such a key element to the book concept.
So both of them were well aware of the crucial element re: the starting point of these ‘Journeys in Black and White’ - Kenya.
How can you label that "crucial" when the year prior Obama had told the Times, Post, and Tribune he was born in Hawaii and when the actual book contents of "Dreams" say nothing of him being born in Kenya? Your thinking is rather muddled.
Now what exactly are you saying? That the agent made the entire pitch, both to Obama and to the publisher, on the basis of a fact check error? Can you honestly believe that? Really???
One can sincerely believe that the pamphlet/bio -- which was not part of the book nor even part of the "dust cover" book description, but rather was written by the agency for distribution just to other publishers -- was done in error. Obama's bio was just one of many listed in that pamphlet, and given he was hardly a prominent author at the time, it was a detail easily overlooked.
The only possible scenario is that the agent knew of Obama’s Kenyan birth prior to approaching him originally.
And on what basis would the agent "know" this? Again, try to explain that "knowledge" in light of the national media reports the year prior that state Obama was born in Hawaii. If you say she was misinformed, then how do you explain Obama’s going along with her.
Again, that bio was not part of "Dreams" at all, neither in the book contents nor even as part of any dust jacket description. The book-buying public wouldn't even be aware of it when electing to purchase the book (that is, until recently when that bio got circulated all over the web). There's no evidence that Obama knew what the agency wrote in a pamphlet (his being one bio among several dozen)the agency was sending out to other publishers.