American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Barack Obama in His Own Words (Part I of III)

More news stories on Barack Obama

Robert Henderson, Special to AR News, March 27, 2009

This appraisal of Mr. Obama’s character is based on his two books, Dreams From My Father (DMF) and The Audacity of Hope (AOH). The advantage of relying on these sources is that they are not only Mr. Obama’s own words but his considered words. He cannot claim that were written hastily and without reflection.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the first book, DMF, was written in 1995 when Mr. Obama was a married man in his mid-thirties. Hence, it reflects his mature views, not those of a giddy teenager. In addition, Mr. Obama agreed to the republication of DMF in 2004 when he was already an established politician, so his 1995 views cannot be written off as something that do not represent his present thinking. Together with The Audacity of Hope, written in 2006, these two books give us a picture of Mr. Obama before he started his political career and after he became a politician.

Shaping the Past

Both books are filled with great swathes of what appears to be reported speech. These are ostensibly conversations from Mr. Obama’s early childhood onwards. In the case of DMF, a casual reader could easily think he had picked up a novel.

Mr. Obama says coyly in the introduction to DMF that “although much of my book is based on contemporaneous journals or the oral histories of my family, the dialogue is necessarily an approximation of what was actually said or relayed to me.”

Approximation is putting it mildly because Mr. Obama “recalls” astonishingly vast tracks of dialogue from all stages of his life. There are many pages of almost continuous dialogue, and when he meets his Kenyan half-sister Auma for the first time we get a monologue that takes up almost seven pages. (DMF pp. 212–219.) As for contemporaneous journals, nowhere does Mr. Obama mention keeping such records or refer to journals kept by others. As he is the protagonist in almost all the dialogue, he is presumably relying almost entirely on “oral history,” a notoriously unreliable source.

Mr. Obama’s writing veers even further into fiction because, as he writes, “For the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology.” The books are often vague about even approximately when an event occurred. Mr. Obama then tops all this imprecision by telling the reader, “With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy.” This sounds like a device to make sure nosey journalists ask no awkward questions and that the people he writes about raise no objections.

The use of invented dialogue, fictional names, composite characters, and a vague chronology means we cannot tell whether Mr. Obama is putting his own views into other characters’ mouths or whether they speak for themselves. For example, take this rant against white oppression from an old black friend from his childhood whom he calls Frank:

“Leaving your race at the door” he said. “Leaving your people behind.” He studied me over the top of his reading glasses. “Understand something, boy. You’re not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained. They’ll train you to want what you don’t need. They’ll train you to manipulate words so they don’t mean anything anymore. They’ll train you to forget what it is that you already know. They’ll train you so good, you’ll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit. They’ll give you a corner office and invite you to fancy dinners, and tell you you’re a credit to your race. Until you want to actually start running things, and then they’ll yank on your chain and let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you’re a nigger just the Same.” (DMF p. 97.)
Is that Mr. Obama talking or Frank? Who knows, although it is a fact that when Mr. Obama creates dialogue that is openly anti-white—and there is a good deal of it in DMF—he either does not condemn it outright or even treat it as unsavory or dangerous. The most he ever does is pose quiet arguments against such views but they are so wrapped in qualifications one can never be certain of his position. Moreover, his toleration for more than 20 years of Jeremiah Wright is a strong hint that much of the anti-white animus he reports in the mouths of others is not uncongenial to him. Mr. Obama also reports dialogue in which he himself expresses anti-white feelings. Here he is as a student talking about Conrad’s Heart of Darkness:
“It’s a racist book. The way Conrad sees it, Africa’s a cesspool of the world, black folks are savages, and any contact with them breeds infection.

Regina blew on her coffee. “So why are you reading it?”

“Because it’s assigned,” I paused, not sure if I should go on. “And because . . .

“Because . . . ?

“And because the book teaches me things.” I said. “About white people, I mean. See, the book’s not really about Africa. Or black people. It’s about the man who wrote it. The European. The American. A particular way of looking at the world. If you can keep your distance, it’s all there, in what’s said and what’s left unsaid. So I read the book to help me understand just what makes white folks so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate.” (DMF p. 103.)

The reader cannot help wondering whether what Mr. Obama writes is really true. A pointer towards a general carelessness about the truth is the fact that the tone of the dialogue is uniform. Whether he is a speaking as a boy, college student, married family man, or senator he is much the same. This uniformity of style strongly suggests that all we are hearing is Mr. Obama as the man he was when he wrote either book, not what he was at various points in his life.

Here he is supposedly speaking, as a boy of less then ten, with his Indonesian step-father Lolo.

“Have you ever seen a man killed?” I asked him.

He glanced down, surprised by the question.

“Have you?” I asked again.

“Yes,” he said.

“Was it bloody?”

“Yes.”

I thought for a moment. “Why was the man killed? The one you saw?”

“Because he was weak.”

“That’s all?”

Lob shrugged and rolled his pant leg back down. “That’s usually enough. Men take advantage of weakness in other men. They’re like countries in that way. The strong man takes the weak man’s land. He makes the weak man work in his fields. If the weak man’s woman is pretty, the strong man will take her.” He paused to take another sip of water, then asked, “Which would you rather be?” (DMF p. 40.)

Besides being sometimes utterly improbable, Mr. Obama’s dialogue invariably serves some purpose that benefits him. He manipulates the supposedly real-life people the way a novelist manipulates characters, to fit the story he wants to tell. If Mr. Obama wants to describe black victimhood, up pops a character to say how hard done by blacks are and always have been. If he wants to agonize about his racial heritage, along comes someone to say exactly what he needs to start his own self-examination. If he wants to expand on his political policies and philosophy, up pops someone with exactly the right peg on which to hang a disquisition. Here is Mr. Obama using a white English doctor he calls Wilkerson, who is working in Malawi:
“I asked him why he thought he had come back to Africa and he answered without a pause, as if he’d heard the question many times.

“It’s my home, I suppose. The people, the land. . . .” He took off his glasses and wiped them with a handkerchief. [Mr. Obama’s “memory” for such gestures is uncanny.] “It’s funny, you know. Once you’ve lived here for a time, the life in England seems terribly cramped. The British have so much more, but seem to enjoy things less. I felt a foreigner there.”

He put his glasses back on and shrugged. “Of course, I know that in the long run I need to be replaced. That’s part of my job—making myself unnecessary. The Malawian doctors I work with are excellent, really. Competent. Dedicated. If we could just build a training hospital, some decent facilities, we could triple their number in no time.”

“And then?”

He turned toward the campfire, and I thought his voice began to waver. “Perhaps I can never call this place home,” he said. “Sins of the father, you know. I’ve learned to accept that.” He paused for a moment, then looked at me.” (DMF p. 355.)

The passage neatly lets Mr. Obama promote the idea of white guilt, redemption through service to Africans, white dissatisfaction for their own society, and white yearning for Africa—although it is a yearning they can never satisfy because they do not belong there.

All of this suggests that what Mr. Obama is giving us is no more than his heavily edited version of the past at best and pure fantasy at worst.

What does his choice of this form of narrative tell us about Mr. Obama? It suggests he is a man who is determined to shape reality to his own idea of himself. Why should he do this? As we will see there is plenty in the books to suggest he is insecure, someone who cannot deal with criticism and who frets over how others view him.

This is disturbing behavior for anyone, let alone someone who wanted to go into politics. I cannot think of any other politician who has used the pseudo-novelistic approach to tell his life story.

Mr. Obama’s Background

If we assume that genes play a strong role in determining character, what can we learn from Mr. Obama’s ancestry?

Apart from the fact that he got himself an education, Mr. Obama’s father’s behavior matches the modern stereotype of the black man. He goes from one woman to another breeding incontinently, and this explains why Mr. Obama has so many half-brothers and half-sisters. He leaves Mr. Obama’s mother when Barack is still a toddler and then reappears rarely in the boy’s life. From Mr. Obama’s account, he provided his mother with no money whatsoever, and back in Africa he variously abandoned and neglected his other women and children. He became a drunk and ruined his job prospects by recklessly insulting influential people. Here is Mr. Obama’s account of his half-sister Auma describing his father’s behavior towards members of the Kenyan elite:

“When he was passed up for a promotion, he complained loudly. ‘How can you be my senior,’ he would say to one of the ministers, ‘and yet I am teaching you how to do your job properly?’” (DMF p. 215.)
Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, a white woman from middle America, marries first an African then an Indonesian, but neither marriage lasts. For someone of her background to marry one person of a different race and culture might be put down to love; marrying two looks like a political statement. She takes Mr. Obama to Indonesia then sends him back to the USA—Hawaii—after several years to live with his mother’s parents. Eventually she returns to the USA and takes an anthropology degree, during which time Mr. Obama lives with her. After she finishes her degree, she leaves Mr. Obama once more with her parents while she goes abroad for anthropological fieldwork.

Mr. Obama’s description of his mother makes her sound like a Margaret Mead anthropological naïf, forever searching for the right approach to non-white, non-American people while ironically insisting most of the time that Mr. Obama be brought up as an American. Mr. Obama describes her attitude towards blacks:

Every black man was Thurgood Marshall or Sidney Poitier; every black woman Fannie Lou Hamer or Lena Horne. To be black was to be the beneficiary of a great inheritance, a special destiny, glorious burdens that only we were strong enough to bear. Burdens we were to carry with style. More than once, my mother would point out, “Harry Belafonte is the best-looking man on the planet.” (DMF p. 51.)
It is clear that Mr. Obama’s parents were unusually selfish and egotistical, far more concerned with satisfying their own wants than caring for others, even their children. Mr. Obama’s description of their personalities, both through his own presumed recollection and that of others, paints a picture of reckless self-absorption.

As for his grandparents, if Mr. Obama is to be believed, his grandfather was a restless, undisciplined man who never made a success of anything, flitting from place to place and job to job until he finally settled in Hawaii. His grandmother, despite Mr. Obama’s attempt to paint her as a feminist trailblazer as the first female vice-president of a local Hawaiian bank, comes across as curiously colorless for someone Mr. Obama claims loomed very large in his emotional life.

Apart from five years in Indonesia with his Indonesian step-father, Mr. Obama was raised by whites. For most of his childhood he lived in Hawaii which, because of its very varied population, probably gave him the least opportunity of any part of the country to experience segregation or racism.

Mr. Obama doesn’t say so explicitly, but the implication is that his school was predominantly white. He goes on to good universities, Occidental and Columbia, which are predominantly white. After a short stint of community work among blacks he goes to white-dominated Harvard Law School and teaches constitutional law in white-dominated universities when he is not in the white-dominated Illinois legislature or the very white US Senate.

Such a background might have made Mr. Obama comfortable about both his racial mix and white society. In fact, the reverse is true. He was unlucky enough to have parents who both deserted him. That alone could make him insecure, but what absorbs him is his racial background. The man is obsessed with the fact that he is between two worlds, the black and the white.

At the same time, one wonders just how popular he was as a child. Consider this: “During the entire time that I was growing up, I attended exactly two birthday parties, both of which involved five or six kids, cone hats, and a cake.” (AOH p. 349.)

Mr. Obama spent most of his childhood in a middle class world, in which birthday parties would have been very common. Why did he attend only two? Was he unpopular? Did this feed his feeling of exclusion? His later accounts of his college days and his time as a community organizer give the impression that his relations were frequently fractious, especially with other black men. Could it be that he is not generally liked at the personal level?

Part II

Part III

Mr. Henderson is a history and politics graduate whose career was divided between the public and private sectors. He is now retired and lives in Britain.

(Posted on March 27, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Question Diversity wrote at 6:08 PM on March 27:

That President Obama is descended from so many people who wallowed in their own selfishness and gratification might explain some of his habits as President today. The scripted nature of these books foreshadows the scripted telepromptery nature of his Presidency so far, and the fact that he was willing to embellish the truth in a delusional nature is how he handles public policy, oblivious to certain fundamental concepts like human reality, budgetary constraints and public protest.

2 — Colonel Taylor wrote at 6:10 PM on March 27:

“With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy.” This sounds like a device to make sure nosey journalists ask no awkward questions and that the people he writes about raise no objections.

Presumably he’s not talking about his immediate family but of his illegal immigrant “Auntie Zeituni” and the granny in Hawaii he couldn’t be bothered to visit.

3 — Anonymous wrote at 6:44 PM on March 27:

“So I read the book (Heart of Darkness) to help me understand just what makes white folks so afraid. Their demons. The way ideas get twisted around. It helps me understand how people learn to hate.”

That’s a bit of a racist attitude to take about it? Or is that the attitude that’s encouraged at Harvard? I find it hard to imagine white students being taught anything about people of color other than how noble they are. The Harvard student body is not as all white as the writer makes it out to be is it?

“His grandmother, despite Mr. Obama’s attempt to paint her as a feminist trailblazer as the first female vice-president of a local Hawaiian bank, comes across as curiously colorless for someone Mr. Obama claims loomed very large in his emotional life.”

‘Feminist trailblazer’? Everyone has a grandmother who is in charge of the local bank branch. You know, I say the following for effect, and kind of as a joke, but sometimes I wish we lived in the times I’ve read about where only men were trusted to work at the bank. That’s where things started to all go wrong…

“For someone of her (Stanley Ann Dunham) background to marry one person of a different race and culture might be put down to love; marrying two looks like a political statement.”

The personal is political. Liberals have been living by that creed seemingly forever. Kind of a blackmail to get what they want. Holding us hostage by that creed. Always for a good cause of course. The only way of life they’ve been exposed to.

4 — 24/7 wrote at 6:44 PM on March 27:

We won’t hear the Democrats complaining of how Obama is not doing what he said he would do if he was elected.

Most Democrats didn’t have a solid, intelligent reason for voting for him.

They didn’t know what he said his stance was during the campaign, so they don’t know what to compare to the stance he’s taking now.

The fact is no one really knows what this man is about. I just know it’s not good.

5 — Phil wrote at 6:46 PM on March 27:

I used to think being a pathological liar was a part of the African culture, but now I am starting to think that blacks are truly incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction, melding them together into an AOH type universe.
That combined with the ethnomasochism of whites: http://cordeliaforlear.blogspot.com/2009/03/ethnomasochism-sad-state-of-euro.html
….Won him the presidency.

Obama knows how to play simple people like a violin, and most people are simple.

6 — John PM wrote at 7:03 PM on March 27:

“Such a background might have made Mr. Obama comfortable about both his racial mix and white society. In fact, the reverse is true. He was unlucky enough to have parents who both deserted him. That alone could make him insecure, but what absorbs him is his racial background. The man is obsessed with the fact that he is between two worlds, the black and the white.”

A rather incisive and thought provoking observation by Mr. Henderson, along with the fact that this wretched nonentity, has gone to great lengths to “invent” a persona for public consumption and his own psychological purging. Moreover, his insecurities about himself and his racial identity, do oddly reflect on the times that have seen him rise to the highest political office in the land. Diversity and multiculturalism are what this country is supposed to believe in without question, but the reality of it always seems to fall very short of its promised rewards.

Instead of “enrichment,” we have overpopulation and financial chaos; instead of “unity,” we have growing social estrangements and conflicts; and instead of “strength,” we see these internal problems eroding our diplomatic and military positions.

Hence, the times do seem to reflect the “savior” who is both to represent the “achievements” of this neo-Marxist construct and perpetuate its future advancements. All the while, an accelerated angst about the vast nothingness both he and this system symbolizes, grows exponentially.

I fear that the abyss may be where all of this ends?

As always, God help us all!

7 — Question Diversity wrote at 8:37 PM on March 27:

John PM:

I have found, about the psychology of mulattoes, that their basic attitude is if they can’t be truly white, then nobody else should.

***

As far as President Obama’s educational history, he admitted to goofing off, cutting most of his classes and doing drugs during his junior and senior years of high school, the exclusive Hawaiian one. Yet, he somehow was able to graduate and get into Occidental College. He didn’t do that well there, and somehow was accepted to transfer to an Ivy League school (Columbia). Didn’t do to well there, either, but somehow got into Harvard Law. He lucked into winning election as Editor of the Law Review, mostly because conservatives at the HLR picked him as the lesser of two evils versus a more stridently liberal candidate. That and they could boast that they voted to put a black in as HLR Editor to head off what was massive criticism that comes from being white and a non-liberal at Harvard.

Plain words, he’s lucked into or has been affirmative actioned into just about everything he has. I will give him brownie points for defeating Clinton Inc. in the Democrat Primaries of last year, but as far as the general election, his opponent was McCain and, as Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) implied awhile back, and putting two and two together, George Soros (Obama supporter) crashed the American economy in September in order to get him elected. Coming off the Republican Convention in early September, McCain had a 15 point lead in the polls.

8 — Alexandra wrote at 9:02 PM on March 27:

I guess Stanley Ann Dunham believed in “diversity and inclusion” before it became the latest fad.

She made a statement all right…she didn’t care about her white heritage.

9 — Tim in Indiana wrote at 10:10 PM on March 27:

An overall good article, however I think the author dropped the ball on the ending of this segment. With Obama, it’s not because he wasn’t invited to enough birthday parties that explains his overall outlook on life. With Obama, it’s race, race and race.

10 — SKIP wrote at 11:26 PM on March 27:

I guess Stanley Ann Dunham believed in “diversity and inclusion” before it became the latest fad.
She made a statement all right…she didn’t care about her white heritage.

There were lots of these sort of people in the 60’s and I doubt any good came of any of them.

11 — Vlad The Emailer wrote at 12:34 AM on March 28:

As posters on this site probably know, there is a movement underway to force Obama to prove he was born in Hawaii and not Kenya. So far this movement hasn’t gotten anywhere but it does seem to be gaining some momentum of late. And the fact Obama is fighting showing a genuine Hawaiian birth certificate is keeping the story alive. Farah of World Net Daily is the force behind this story. Since Obama is fighting this so hard it probably means he knows he was born in Africa. This story shows no sign of dying so things could get interesting. Many, including me, think we have a foreign born president, hence an illegal one. If we do, and he is removed, blacks will surely try to destroy the country.

12 — Thomas Jackson wrote at 12:35 AM on March 28:

Long before the election, I spent an hour at the bookstore trying to sort through AOH.

My immediate impression was the book was a “packaging job” to sell this loser to the American Sheeple. Try as I might, I could not get a handle on any of his values. I went back and forth, trying to nail something down about this guy, to no avail.

All platitudes and no substance, no real stand on anything.

Clearly the MSM can sell anything to the ignorant, cowardly Caucasian public and of course the Africans and Hispanics too.

America is a lost cause.

13 — GenX in Oz wrote at 1:01 AM on March 28:

Just a quick post on a Russian mulatto Ice cream that I found hilarious. Pardon me lowering the tone.

‘Obama ice cream ad stirs anger’
http://tinyurl.com/d65p4y

14 — Anonymous wrote at 1:09 AM on March 28:

Even though I dislike Barack Obama, this seems to be an extremely crude cross-examination. Certainly, Mr Obama holds strong racial attitudes (most people, after all, do). But his seem less pronounced than most black people’s.

15 — Cliff Yablonski wrote at 1:53 AM on March 28:

Dreams Of My Father is a shameless work of fiction passed off as fact. There’s no way the extensive conversations he reports from his youth could be remembered so clearly. No way.

16 — HH wrote at 2:10 AM on March 28:

This only reinforces something I have suspected all along - that Barack Obama is above all, more an actor more than a genuine individual. He is playing a role for political gain and for political ends. As Obama’s own scribblings clearly suggest, he is not simply a man - he is a character as in a novel. A character who can be made and molded to represent a sort of ideal, a living caricature even, who conveniently embodies all that is deemed glorious today - he is witty and well-spoken, fit and attractive(or so we are endlessly told), he is multiracial and therefore the ultimate representation of race-harmony/racelessness all at once, he is liberal and “tolerant” on all the “right” issues, he is hip and cool with the youth, etc., etc.

This is clearly all just too good to be true! Alas, Obama is…the perfect man!!! But we all know no one and nothing is perfect, especially that which is cleverly and cynically packaged to appear so, when the facts, even to the casual observer, suggest otherwise.

Obama’s politics may to some degree still be something of a mystery. Sure he’s “liberal” but who in Washingtone, when all is said and done, is not? But what seems absolutely certain is that Obama is, by and large, a fraud - an actor on a stage, playing the role to the hilt. And as with the idiots in Hollywood, the American people(and many around the world) adore him, not for who he really is(whomever that may be) but for who and what he appears to be. Obama is too good to be true…and thus, sensible people should instinctively understand, all that is too good to be true isn’t true at all.





17 — browser wrote at 4:45 AM on March 28:

“I have found, about the psychology of mulattoes, that their basic attitude is if they can’t be truly white, then nobody else should.”


I too have found exactly the same. If they can’t be [whatever], then nobody else can either.

Another point to be made is that nowhere in this article is Bill Ayers mentioned. That topic was discussed here in another article not long ago, and it was convincingly shown, by meticulous research done by some professor, that Ayers was the true author.

Thus, the public Obama is a sort of Frankenstein-type creature put together and constructed by a whole team of promotors and manipulators to serve their own agenda. What is that agenda?

Added to that, we have the giddy enthusiasm of the press, both here and around the world, universally breathless at how wonderful it all is. This seems obviously orchestrated. It leaves you wondering just what is REALLY going on here?

18 — Reader-1 wrote at 7:19 AM on March 28:


I can make a prediction about Obama which extends into his future after he is finished being president. That prediction is that he won’t spend a lot of time trying to solve the problems of blacks.

This is because any mulatto who can escape being “black” will accept the opportunity. He wanted to transcend his race, and he accomplished that, so the obsession with race will be part of his past.

19 — Anonymous wrote at 8:11 AM on March 28:

With due respect to the author for making sense of BHO’s writings word for word, all of this about him was known before the election. Yet in all that liberalist frenzy and promotion, BHO was elected. One day, the average American will READ his books in a deep way and understand the utter mistake that was made.

20 — Question Diversity wrote at 8:51 AM on March 28:

Vlad:

I used to doubt that Obama citizenship doubters, as I thought all along that having one American parent automatically makes you American. It does these days, but in 1961, when Barack H. Obama II was born, it wasn’t the case — if you had one American and one non-American parent, your citizenship depended on where you were born.

Though I hate to break the news: If this ever got to SCOTUS, I bet they’ll just declare that aspect of the way the law used to be unconstitutional, therefore Obama is a citizen.

21 — Anonymous wrote at 9:02 AM on March 28:

To understand “Dreams,” one must know that it was written by Bill Ayers, not BO.

Jack Cashill has done tremendous work exosing this fraud.

22 — john wrote at 9:04 AM on March 28:

Somehow I doubt that Obama even wrote any of this sophomoric and self-serving drivel.

A man who can’t manage a full and coherent sentence without a teleprompter is unlikely to have penned a novel, even a bad one such as these.

23 — Alexandra wrote at 10:32 AM on March 28:

Has anyone ever read Devvy Kidd’s articles at newswithviews.com? She makes the point that even if BO had been born in Hawaii, the issue is with his father’s citizenship, and his stepfather’s citizenship. If he was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather, he had Indonesian citizenship. I mean, there are a few angles to this, but what it all boils down to is, Obama is not qualified to be president.

There is even doubt of McCain’s citizenship for what that’s worth, since he was born in Panama or something like that.

24 — Great White Observer wrote at 10:39 AM on March 28:

That is about all Obama knows or remembers of his father, a dream. Maybe it should have been titled “If I Only Had a Father” But this situation is so common in “The Community” it would hardly gain any notice.

25 — Quiet Professional wrote at 11:35 AM on March 28:

This was an excellent article. It held my attention, which is a feat in and of itself, given that anything about Obongo makes me nauseous.

To browser:

The Frankenstein analogy was excellent. I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it.

I’ve always seen Obongo as another George W. Bush. Bush was a puppet in the hands of Cheney (and other ravenous commercial enterprises), and I firmly believe ol’ Barry Obongo is simply the liberal/Democratic version.

At this point though I can’t pin down who it is that’s pulling Barry’s strings. Rahm Emmanuel? George Soros? Someone else?

26 — clue0 wrote at 12:09 PM on March 28:

Anonymous at 1:09 wrote:

“Even though I dislike Barack Obama, this seems to be an extremely crude cross-examination. Certainly, Mr Obama holds strong racial attitudes (most people, after all, do). But his seem less pronounced than most black people’s.”
* * *

You lack the ability to see this objectively because you judge Obama within a blackworld context. If Bush had written books charged with even one single racial shard, he would have been cast a drooling southerner-bigot.

But, there are many people who cannot remove their guilty (and frankly racist) dispositions and judge Obama with the same standards as they would with any other president in history.

This stubborn unwillingness to lift blacks to the same standard as whites is at the root of a brainwashed and doomed society.

27 — SKIP wrote at 1:45 PM on March 28:

Certainly, Mr Obama holds strong racial attitudes (most people, after all, do). But his seem less pronounced than most black people’s.

He is just sneakier than most, he has a higher agenda and to be a typical black would not further that agenda.

28 — SKIP wrote at 1:49 PM on March 28:

I went back and forth, trying to nail something down about this guy, to no avail.
All platitudes and no substance, no real stand on anything.

So you’re agreeing that he is in fact, a perfect example of a politician with an agenda that does not take the taxpaying slave into account except to finance that agenda.

29 — Question Diversity wrote at 2:13 PM on March 28:

Alexandra:

John Sidney McCain III was born in the Panama Canal Zone, a U.S. territory at the time. But even if he was born outside of American territory, both of his parents were American citizens, so he is automatically once. If he would have won the election and some lib would have taken the issue to the courts, I can ill imagine that the Federal judiciary would have turned away a POW, whose father and grandfather were very high up Admirals in the Navy.

30 — The Incredible Shrinking White Man wrote at 8:05 PM on March 28:


AmRen’s subtitle for this article:


“What is the character of the man Americans have elected president?”


Race entirely aside, by any REASONABLE standards, this man’s character can only be said to be pretty darned poor. This much — on the basis of the overwhelming and CONCRETE evidence presented by this article — must be said to be not only non-controversial but absolutely UNDENIABLE: our new President’s character and integrity are PRETTY DARNED POOR.

As poor as any President there’s even been.

It’s not just his skin color that makes him “not like us.” I’m afraid the differences run a lot deeper than that.


31 — Alexandra wrote at 10:05 PM on March 28:

Question Diversity:

Doesn’t the Constitution say born in the United States? Would a territory even count?

Moot point, but still worth thinking about.

(I voted for Chuck Baldwin.)

32 — acsnyc wrote at 11:42 PM on March 28:

Question Diversity:

The issue isn’t whether Obama is a U.S. Citizen but whether he is a “Natural Born Citizen” per Article II, Section I of the Constitution. NBC is a higher standard than mere “Citizen” and is a requirement solely for the office of the Presidency. The spirit of the NBC clause was to prevent any chance of dual allegiances.

If you read Vattel’s Law of Nations, which our Founders relied heavily upon to draft the Constitution, NBC means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents at time of birth.

Fightthesmears.com, Obama’s citizenship vetting website during the campaign, has stated the following:

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

It is a moot point whether or not Obama Jr. was physically born in Hawaii.

Obama’s father is a British subject (per the Obama campaign).

Hence Obama Jr. cannot be a NBC and thus is unqualified to be POTUS.

33 — ghw wrote at 3:17 AM on March 29:

Question Diversity:
[re. McCain and Panama] Doesn’t the Constitution say born in the United States? Would a territory even count?
Moot point, but still worth thinking about.
— Alexandra
………………………………
It’s complex and I don’t know the answers, but I could point out that:

1. The USA had no [overseas] territories at the time the Constitution was written. (True, we did have the Northwest Territory, and then the Louisiana Territory. Babies born there were not considered foreigners or excluded from US citizenship).
2. The Canal Zone was under US admistration, virtually a part of the US itself, and was quite different from Panama. There were many American personnal stationed there and surely many babies born there. I can’t believe those babies were excluded from citizenship, or even had their citizenship questioned.
3. Hawaii was itself a Territory, as are Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands at present. Their populations are all US citizens.

As for Obama, even if it could be proven that he’s not technically, under the law, a US citizen, I doubt that anything would come of it. It’s too late now. How do you unmake a sitting president? There would be riots, civil discord. It simply wouldn’t be allowed to happen. As someone above said, the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it. Or Congress would pass some kind of special exemption. SOMETHING would be done to get around that sticky law, because otherwise the country would be torn apart.

I don’t see this challange to Obama going far, because if it didn’t get anywhere BEFORE he was elected, it certainly isn’t going anywhere now that he’s installed in the White House.

The only exception that I can see might be if some scandal or gross incompetence arises that would turn the public massively against him, and thus they’d be looking for an excuse to get him out.

34 — Realist in Atlanta wrote at 3:44 AM on March 29:

You ‘citizens’ folks miss the point. McCain was born on a Navy base which IS considered American territory. But even if he were not born in America, he is STILL a citizen. Barack Obama is also a citizen. Citizen or not is NOT the issue. The constitution says that to be president you have to have been BORN in America. Arnold Swatzenegger is a citizen but he was not born in America so he cannot be president.

That is the issue with Obama. Not whether or not he is a citizen but rather where he was born. As I said, the McCain issue is moot as a Navy base IS American!

- Real

35 — Enough wrote at 8:15 AM on March 29:

Does anyone else find it odd that in the year Obama runs and wins his opponent just happened to be a man who also had, because of his birth in the Panama canal zone, some question as to his status as a naturalized citizen. I have read this clause and find it less than clear. It seems to me that not only did the Republicans throw the election this year but that they also provided cover for Obama’s own questionable eligibility to hold the office of POTUSA.

Let’s wake up people, both current political parties are bought and paid for by the same global elitist powers. We do not have representation in this nation’s governance. Furthermore there is no “conservative” party in the USA. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are socialist statist parties, both are going down the same hallway. The Democrats are just walking on the left side of the hallway and the Republicans are walking on the right.

Under both parties the government grows larger, our sovereignty as a nation diminishes, our Constitution is ignored and marginalized and our hard won individual freedoms are assaulted and violated. The real cost of electing Obama is that it provides great encouragement to the non-whites and their socialist enablers in this nation who continue to undermine it by every means possible to them. Obama’s disastorous “stimulus” bill only serves to funnel billions more of borrowed and counterfeited dollars to the same anti-American groups who got him elected in the first place.

Anyway having one race traitor, American hating, silly mother may qualify him for the presidency of the current “United” Socialist Republic of American but it sure doesn’t give him any moral authority over me.

36 — Ivan AM wrote at 12:37 PM on March 29:

Girls named Stanley, a president who is not a natural-born citizen, outrageous lies that no one calls him on, newscasters’ legs tingling, White-bashing Afro-centric Christian churches, White Americans forced to pay financial support for those who care not one fig for us …

Obama and his left-leaning legions will put us decent White Americans in the grey wasteland from which he came, or we will force him back into that sterile and loveless loneliness, where he can bitterly brood and plot his next foray into the world of reality and consequence!

The first 90 days of the four-year-long Halloween has not been a rousing success! Even White Liberals are wondering exactly what they bought.

37 — Simmons wrote at 2:15 PM on March 29:

Obama is the defacto “leader” of the anti-white cult.

38 — jsragman wrote at 3:21 PM on March 29:

1/20/2013 end of an error

39 — Anonymous wrote at 5:30 PM on March 29:

If obama is a native-born American citizen, he should have a “consular birth certificate” issued by the American embassy in his country of birth (kenya). This confers all the benefits of native-born citizenship. If obama does not have a “consular birth certificate”, he would be considered to be “naturalized” and NOT be eligible for the presidency.

40 — Anonymous wrote at 5:49 PM on March 29:

Certainly, Mr Obama holds strong racial attitudes (most people, after all, do). But his seem less pronounced than most black people’s.
He is just sneakier than most, he has a higher agenda and to be a typical black would not further that agenda.
Posted by SKIP
——-
That is only a superficial view that misses what’s beneath the surface. You’re paying too much attention to Obama, as if he’s the one who’s actually running things all by himself, while ignoring his string of handlers and manipulators who keep to the background.

As far as I am concerned, he’s only a public front — as most presidents have been for a long while now. Any “agenda” that Obama is representing was conceived by somebody else, you can bet on it. Who might they be? Well, just look at who his most enthusiastic promoters and contributors have been.

41 — BonBon wrote at 6:00 PM on March 29:

“….But what seems absolutely certain is that Obama is, by and large, a fraud - an actor on a stage, playing the role to the hilt…”

Posted by HH

Yes, exactly.

Others call him a puppet controlled by his behind-the-scenes handlers. Obama is incapable of fomenting a coherent thought himself and must rely on a script written for him on a teleprompter.

I do not believe for a second obama is smart enough or organized enough to have pulled off what he did, especially as an unknown, without A LOT of outside help and money (big money). His handlers played him up brilliantly with tons of help from the lapdogs in the biased msm—any scintilla of criticism is instantly, loudly denounced in the msm as blatant racism— targeting , attacking and shutting up the critics (ask Rush). Even the political cartoonists are cringing in fear of ‘offending’ obama and being slapped with the racist label.

Obama is a perfect front man for the hostile elites—and the msm won’t allow YOU to scratch the surface, because there’s nothing underneath this empty suit.

Better to have the entire ecomony destroyed than criticize the first black president (but wasn’t that the plan all along?).

Bon

42 — BonBon wrote at 6:18 PM on March 29:

“…That topic was discussed here in another article not long ago, and it was convincingly shown, by meticulous research done by some professor, that Ayers was the true author…”

Browser:

That ‘some professor’ you refer to is the brilliant Professor Jack Cashill. I own most of his wonderful books—‘Hoodwinked’ and ‘What’s the Matter With California’ sit on my special bookshelf of most favored books. I especially recommend ‘Hoodwinked’ for Cashill’s debunking of lefty icons such as Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey.

From the book description:

“…For a century, ‘progressive’ writers and filmmakers-multiculturalists like Ward Churchill and Alex Haley, sexual revolutionaries like Kinsey and Margaret Mead, quasi-Marxists like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore, and radical naturalists like Paul Ehrlich and Rachel Carson…. Jack Cashill’s ‘Hoodwinked’ synthesizes dogged research and reveals the depth and breadth of the corruption at the very foundation of contemporary intellectual culture…”

http://tinyurl.com/de9hw9

Here is a link to a Jack Cashill article entitled: “Dreams from my Teleprompter.” It will answer anyone’s query as to Ayer’s writing of obama’s ‘auto-biography.’

http://tinyurl.com/cypz7v

Happy Reading.

Bon

43 — Anonymous wrote at 7:00 PM on March 29:

“Barack Obama in His Own Words”


In his own words? I think not sufficient attention has been given in this article as to whether they are Obama’s own words at all. In fact, that is highly doubtful, as his books were said to be written for him by others, according to experts.

44 — William Witten wrote at 11:11 PM on March 29:

Obamas mental status needs to be questioned. He has more love for the black father who abandoned him then he does for the white mother and white grandparents who raised him. If he were 100% black, he would not be P{resident. The fact they his campaign commercials showed his white grandparents was to put white voters at ease.

45 — Anonymous wrote at 5:13 AM on March 30:

Question Diversity: Doesn’t the Constitution say born in the United States? Would a territory even count?

Moot point, but still worth thinking about.
Posted by Alexandra

It’s a moot point, and a very interesting one. It would really have to be further defined. Does it mean under the jurisdiction of the United States, or physically IN one of the United States? That needs clarification, as the US at that time did not have overseas territories and bases around the world.

It would take some research, but I would ask were there any presidents — someone from the frontier, such as Andrew Jackson or Lincoln (just grasping at straws here)— born in an actual state or in what was then a territory? Did the issue ever come up before?

And, as has been made clear by some posters here, the fundamental issue is not (completely) whether O. is a citizen, (even assuming he is), but WHERE he was born. Or rather, what is a “natural born citizen”? (Does being a “natural born US citizen” mean being born INSIDE the USA?) And are TWO American parents necessary for this requirement?

That term, natural born, is very troublesome and desperately needs clear defining. Given the global commitments of the the present United States, plus the ease and commonness of travel today, it’s likely the question will come up again.


46 — GetBackJack wrote at 10:42 AM on March 30:

Austin, Texas, a hotbed of liberalism (and old hippies living off the State or almost off the State), most likely has many of the answers we’re looking for. Maybe Mary Louise Butter of Mary Louis Butters’ Brownies can tell us what exactly is in the Obama brownie:

http://www.buttersbrownies.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage-flavors3&product_id=127&category_id=2&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=61

Or rather, maybe her ingredients list isn’t really what is it them just like all the falsehoods about our new “leader.” I didn’t know you could make a brownie with lies, corruption, arrogance, conceit, and self-absorbedness.

47 — Anonymous wrote at 1:46 PM on March 30:

Whether BHO was born in Hawaii or Mombasa, Kenya (the latter supported by overwhelming evidence) is not even the issue, really. It is the fact that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and was thus a citizen of Indonesia for a number of years. Dual citizenship is forbidden by the Constitution.

Additionally, BHO’s father, who was indeed born in Kenya, was a British subject. BHO was ineligible for the Oval Office the second he was born. And he knows it.

Any other man (and the word might not apply to BHO) would have quelled the concerns of half the nation by producing the appropriate documentation. That he has sealed all of his records and taken legal action to keep them sealed says a great deal about him, Pelosi, the Clintons, and the entire worthless democrat party, who no doubt are well aware of his ineligibility. Apparently they were determined to seat a minority in the White House regardless.

For those who don’t comprehend the sealing of his university records, it is likely because they indicate he was a FOREIGN student and receiving FOREIGN student financial aid.

To the starry-eyed nuts who voted for him, none of this will matter. To AMERICANS, it will not go away.

48 — acsnyc wrote at 4:08 PM on March 30:

“That term, natural born, is very troublesome and desperately needs clear defining.”

That is true. There is no definition of NBC within the text of the Constitution. As such, it ultimately falls on SCOTUS to make the call. The Court has been only comfortable punting on the NBC issue to date.

An analysis of the orginal intent of the Founders is required. Vattel’s Law of Nations is the key:

“§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”


49 — Anonymous wrote at 4:37 PM on March 30:

“Austin, Texas, a hotbed of liberalism (and old hippies living off the State or almost off the State)…”

Austin, Texas seemed the home of gay bars last time I visited.

50 — Soprano Fan wrote at 7:21 PM on March 30:

To GenX in Oz:

Visited the site you posted - funny ad. Here’s a news flash to Black America - the Russian people have absolutely no use for you. Paul Robeson was a useful idiot for Joseph Stalin, and the Soviet government supported the “liberation struggles” in Southern Africa purely for propaganda purposes. However, the grass-roots Russian man and woman had no use for African students, or Mandela or Mugabe or Samora Machel. But they couldn’t say anything, lest the KGB knock on their doors at midnight.

The head of the Russian ad agency candidly admits Russians are xenophobic -hardly new or confined solely to Russia of course.

51 — browser wrote at 7:58 AM on March 31:

“It would take some research, but I would ask were there any presidents — someone from the frontier, perhaps such as Andrew Jackson or Lincoln (just grasping at straws here)— born in what was then a territory, not a state? Did the issue ever come up before?

That term, natural born, is very troublesome and desperately needs clear defining. Given the global commitments of the the present United States, plus the ease of travel, it’s likely the question will come up again.”
Anon.

— — — — —

It needs clarification right now more than ever — not only because of Obama himself but, looking forward to the future, if the matter is allowed to rest now, then he will set a precedent in this matter; and in future the “natural born citizen” requirement will be, to all effects, null and void.

In fact, for some while now. this”natural-born” issue has been a stumbling block, an annoyance, that certain anti-nativist elements have been concerned about getting removed or nullified. But that would require a constitutional amendment. This Obama case would be a perfect way of getting around that inconvenient clause — simply by establishing a precedent.

52 — browser wrote at 7:59 AM on March 31:

“As for Obama, even if it could be proven that he’s not technically a US citizen, I doubt that anything would come of it. It’s too late now. How do you unmake a sitting president? … the Supreme Court would refuse to hear it, or come up with a novel interpretation. Or Congress would pass some kind of special, retroactive exemption. I don’t see this challange to Obama going far, because if it didn’t get anywhere BEFORE he was elected, it certainly isn’t going anywhere AFTER he’s already installed in the White House.

The only exception that I can see might be if some scandal or gross incompetence arises that would turn the public massively against him, thus they’d be looking for an excuse to get him out.”
ghw
— — — — —

That too, seems unlikely — highly unlikely — because the media, as well as certain powerful elements (the pro-miscegenation, one-world, multi-culty crowd) will go to ANY lengths to cover for him and get him off the hook. He represents too big an investment on their part, all their hopes and dreams, and they can’t afford to lose that. They have all their chips placed on this one. He’s their big chance and they can’t let him blow it.

53 — browser wrote at 8:48 AM on March 31:

“Whether BHO was born in Hawaii or Mombasa, Kenya … is not even the issue. It is the fact that he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and was thus a citizen of Indonesia for a number of years. Dual citizenship is forbidden by the Constitution.”
— — — — —
Duel citizenship is forbidden by the Constitution? Oh? Really? That sounds like an excellent idea to me. I only wish it were so! But apparently that fine point has escaped notice thus far.

You would have to explain it to a lot of people. You could start with Rahm Emanuel, President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff. And that’s just for starters.

If there is such a prohibition, apparently it’s a dead issue.
(Please tell me I’m wrong!)

54 — jdavis wrote at 10:17 AM on March 31:

Why would you vote for any man with so many name changes? and a dubious background (so many questions)?

This man is nothing more than an articulate, affirmative action buffoon, a product of dumbed down - diversity burdened America.

America is gone, no borders, no culture, no language. We are done. Our leaders are less qualified each year because our citizens are less qualified. This government has become a huge
ponzi scheme run by american idol type personalities.

Good luck and the Marxist fleece continues.

“Can you picture our government running health care.” Ask the Vet’s, the health care system they have screwed up for years.

55 — Anonymous wrote at 1:49 PM on March 31:


Vattel’s Law of Nations “§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens… those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. … The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children;…in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Posted by acsnyc
…………………………………..
Thank you for your useful information in this matter.
However, as I read the above, if I understand it correctly, the possession of citizenship (or non-citizenship), as described, would be a permanent condition, in perpetuity, one not consonant with present realities in the USA.

If your parents had to be BORN citizens in order for you to be born a citizen, then their parents would also have had to be born citizens, and their parents, and theirs, etc.

Perhaps this was an adequate rule for ancient countries in the Old World where birth alone determined citizenship; but in a new country such as the USA, the receptor of many immigrants, there would have to be some point established at which one BECOMES a citizen, even if born of non-citizen parents (other than naturalization).

Thus, the above definition is deficient or inadequate for the United States of America. (I presume it was written from a European standpoint, and primarily for Europeans?)

56 — Black Insurgent wrote at 3:49 PM on March 31:

I love how you fools think that because Obama’s mother and his grandparents were white that it really mattered in his development. Racism is so strong in the States that it will always eventually drive most mixed persons to their non-white side. Keep up the good work:)

57 — ghw wrote at 3:58 PM on March 31:

Emmerich de Vattel was a Swiss philosopher and legal expert who died in 1767. He never heard of the USA. He never heard of the steamship or the airplane. His masterpiece, The Law of Nations, was written in 1758 — three decades before the United States of America even existed. It not only preceded the age of revolution, it long preceded the age of immigration, hence on some points it is a bit out of touch with the modern world.

58 — acsnyc wrote at 7:12 PM on March 31:

Anonymous @ 1:49pm:

A person can become a U.S. citizen through various means proscribed by our law, including naturalization. As such our basis for becoming a “citizen” is different than Vattel.

The point of the Vattel quote was the bold portion which is as close as one will come to a textbook defintion of NBC, which is what is required for POTUS.

59 — Anonymous wrote at 2:55 AM on April 1:

…you fools think that because Obama’s mother and his grandparents were white that it really mattered in his development. Racism is so strong in the States that it will always eventually drive most mixed persons to their non-white side.
Black Insurgent
——-
But B.I., aren’t we always told that Hawaii is exempt from this “racism”?

60 — M.M. wrote at 9:10 AM on April 5:

This discussion is absolutely pointless! Do any of you honestly believe anything at all would ever come of this? No one, and I mean no one is going to pursue this,no matter where he was born! The elites put him in power and he’s going to stay in power.I’ll make a prediction right now and bet he’ll be reelected in 2012. Here’s another prediction forya’.By then the liberal dems will have total control of the entire country. Right wing dissident speech will be declared hate-speech! The purveyors of such speech will be arrested in the middle of the night for “hate crimes”. Congress and the Senate will then vote for a repeal of the two-term limit.Can you say “Hugo Obama”? Do you honestly think this can’t possibly happen? In my 50 yrs on this planet,I’ve been witness to a lot of things that I thought “would never happen”. “Not in my country” I boldly declared! Our world is rapidly changing right before our eyes my friends………Teach your children well….

61 — Schoolteacher wrote at 3:41 PM on April 5:

Senator Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for President in 1964, was born in the Territory of Arizona, before it became a state in 1912. At the time, a few Democrats made some noise about his eligibility, but they were largely ignored.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search