Recently in Propaganda

Category

"Then the others started in, clapping, cheering, and I knew that I had them..." - Barry Soetoro, 1980/81

"...nearly everything else Obama has said...is contradicted by the existing evidence. Which can only lead to one conclusion: Obama is not telling us the whole story. Why? What does he have to hide?"

READ THIS: Barack Obama's Close Encounter with the Weather Underground

Yes, Obama is associated with (if not defined by) Marxism. Read what he's written, listen to what he says (links in the following for media files) and peer in-between the lines of the plastered-and-painted-over wall that he attempts to leave standing as the facts of his life.

Perhaps he's assumed that no one would notice the gaping disparities in the life story, facts and absent, or in some cases, the hideous witnesses.

Wing-tip for littlegreenfootballs.


Related, I respect how the public is noticing the painted, plastered personna that is, today, "Barack Hussein Obama."

From the internet, a random statement from an alert voter, another American Joe the Plumber:

WHO IS BEHIND BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan.

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question -- where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college.

When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack -- no longer Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.

(Editor's Note: refer to the previous link, above, for the missing years of Barry/Barack at Columbia University, where no one remembers him, and, there is no thesis on record as having been written by him there.)

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Leppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko was convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans?

(Editor's Note: Obama gained acceptance at Harvard Law after Marxist, John L. McKnight, intervened on his behalf:

In a revelation tying Barack Obama even closer to radical community organizing...a renowned disciple of the late socialist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinksy wrote a letter of recommendation for Obama when he applied to Harvard Law School.

Obama approached Northwestern University professor John L. McKnight - a loyal student of Alinsky's radical tactics - to pen the Harvard letter in the late 1980s. McKnight serves on the boards of radically anti-American groups in Chicago, including one accused of thuggery.

Obama in his 2006 memoir alludes to McKnight -- whom he describes as an "older man who had been active in the civil rights efforts in Chicago in the sixties" -- but stops short of identifying him by name. He referred to him only as "my friend."

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (LESS than asking price). With ALL of those Student Loans, where did he get the money for the property? On the same day, Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for FULL price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi, many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here...

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported (that) Robert Malley, advisor to Obama, was 'sacked' after the press found out he was having regular contacts with 'Hamas', which controls Gaza and is connected with and backed by Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will 'take care of things'.

...Remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those 'small' internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news: on September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on 'This Week' with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, 'my Muslim faith'. When questioned, 'he made a mistake'. Some mistake!

All of the above information I got online. If you would like to check:

Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question: if I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear: 'Beware of the enemy from within'.

mrunpc 10/28/2008

Of keenly related interest, read an array of information at THE OBAMA TRUTH FILE.

From Sweetness & Light: CO-WORKERS: "OBAMA INFLATED HIS RESUME"

...In the Barack-version of reality, Barack declares that he "had money in the bank" while working as a copyrighter (but he embellishes that title and job duties), while, allegedly, having all those student loans from his struggling student, impoverished years at Harvard Law School and Columbia University and travelling all over the world. Whew.

OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP (YouTube video)
Attorney Philip Berg makes his case, convincingly, that Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified for the U.S. Presidency.

Many of us voters have been raising this issue repeatedly and for most of the same reasons that Berg is now pursuing through a federal court case -- which Obama has attempted to have dismissed, then postponed when his motion to dismiss was denied -- so I am pleased to see more exposure of this potentially incindiary issue (and ongoing likely crime by Obama and the Democratic Party).

READ:

THIS COULD BE A GAME CHANGER -- from American Thinker

Interesting question posed in comments section at American Thinker, not raised in the Berg video:

Posted by: DanSchwartz - Oct 11, 12:35 PM

One question not raised by Berg was Obama's trip to Pakistan as a college student. This was not mentioned in either of his two books; but he admitted it in a speech on Sunday, April 5th in San Francisco. This was documented in the New York Times on April 10th at: [www.nytimes.com].

The problem is that at time in the early 1980's, it was unlawful for Americans to travel to Pakistan, so he had to travel there on his Indonesian passport.

And Michelle Obama proves (if the story is true) that she really is monstrous in a phone call to an African news source (African Press International, or, "API") - a conversation that, if true, affirms the opinions about Michelle Obama that she's more than a troubled person.

The Obama campaign says it's "bogus - a lie" as a story (never occured), yet the media source in Africa says, if contacted, they'll verify the story and releases their phone number for that purpose: (to call from the USA), 011-4793299739.

From WorldNetDaily's story about Michelle Obama's alleged phone call and comments:

The Obama campaign immediately denied the telephone call happened.

Tommy Vietor, a campaign spokesman, told Byron York on the National Review Online blog "The Corner," the conversation didn't happen.

"The answer is no, it's not real, the report is made up. She did not speak to the organization," Vietor said.

However, in an e-mail to WND, a man who identified himself as API's "Chief Editor Korikr" confirmed the exchange.

"API hereby confirms to you that the story is true and if the huge interest on this particular story continues, we will post the recording on our website in the next immediate days.

"When we published the story we did not intend to cause any chaos but we are shocked by the huge interest the story is receiving from the Americans and the American media," he continued.

"Mrs. Obama called us just to ask API to stop joining the mainstream hate online media that is trying to destroy her husband's opportunity to get the presidency," he wrote.

Let's see if the Obama-aligned media, so-called, in the U.S. will acknowledge with any seriousness, either story, or both (though the first one is the zinger -- Obama's qualification to be President, or lack thereof, and his lies inorder to seize the Presidency if he isn't qualified and how it is that any organization in the U.S. could and might exist that would sponsor such corruption [that'd be terrorism-times-infinity]).

Also, the most deplorable negation about the Obama-aligned media is that they've ignored this immensely significant story (discussed on more than a few websites by concerned citizens, many of whom have provided professional examination of the Obama-"documents" he's released and all concluded they were fraudulent).

Obama may not be qualified under our U.S. Constitution for the U.S. Presidency -- and just as important a story is why has Obama behaved with pretense that he was qualified if he isn't (what's his motivation for lying and in such profound terms).

We appear to be, as a nation, on the cusp of either remaining civilized or else descended into a third-world anarchy. These two stories reflect rotten roots with pretty buds exposed: either we're intelligent enough to confront and eradicate this sort of decay, or, we aren't and our collective produce is desperately foul.

OBAMA CAMPAIGN ISSUES TALKING POINTS TO MEDIA AHEAD OF DEBATE -- Drudge Flash...

The scurrilous, cheating email from the cheaters reads pretty much like any crib-sheet sent to other cheaters: the Obama campaign relies on the willing, useful fools in the media to join in, thus, rendering cheating the common fare: "it's not really wrong if everyone does it."

Another lowdown, sliding scale by the amoral Left: just when you think they won't sink any lower, they do. The issue is, cheating IS wrong, even when it's done with a great big smile and giant type or a bellowing "spokesperson". I'ts not unusual (and it is smart) for political campaigns to keep in close contact with media as to "talking points" advised and deployed by a campaign, but, what the Obama campaign has done and continues to do is "co-campaign" with many in the media, going so far as to secure modified -- or, propagandized -- content in the media posing as neutral (thus, it's propaganda and "media" is reduced to political activists, devoid of journalistic character).

This IS a process of corruption, a corrupting process if not yet another violation of terms by Obama and campaign and by the complicit media involved, to such an extent that it removes our civilization's very regard for language: "tax cuts" actually means "welfare," "spread (the wealth) around" actually means "taking individual assets by government force," things of this critical nature. And accusing political opponents or "issues in the way" as "smears" and "distractions" respectively, is itself smearing, demeaning, lying and avoiding discussing liabilities, all of which Obama is notoriously common in doing.

I note IN that crib-sheet from the Obama campaign, that they're again efforting to identify Obama's relationships with shady, corrupt, and/or despicable characters as "distractions" ("from the economy" or whatever else they can figure out there to fill-in the blanks).

In which case, they're too late. Obama's got more relationships with the despicable than can be explained by happenstance or even stupidity (both tacts he's tried), and, the reality is, relationships define who individuals are. Meet or find oneself mired in a problem, get unmired as quickly as possible and refuse to return to the mire, but, in Obama's case, he's sought out individuals with bad character and despicable intents and messages, indicating his individual choice. And by remaining in ongoing relationships with people of ill-or-low-regard, he's secured his own identity as one as despicable as theirs.

Reading:
PINCH YOURSELF - by Melanie Phillips (On Obama's scurrilous relationships)

Listening to Obama with interest in the Presidential debates -- not because I like what I hear but because what Obama says is decidedly nonsensical -- and attempting to confront his nonsense with Liberals afterward is an exercise in futility: because (on average, in my experience and the experience of many Conservatives I correspond with) Liberals supporting Obama don't understand "business" -- be it small or large or anything in between -- and reject any information anyone not in Obama's Temple will express to them. And because they're not voting for what Obama says and plans to do, but on other factors, like vanity.

THUS, read this from Patterico:
OBAMA'S TAX PLAN AND SMALL BUSINESS

From Rush Limbaugh:
EXPLAINED: OBAMA'S LIES ABOUT RAISING TAXES ON SMALL BUSINESS

Obama does not know what he's talking about ("tax cuts" for "people making under $250,000.00 a year -- the majority of small businesses make under $250,000.00 a year...") , and he's selling snake-oil to people who either don't care that it's snake oil, or, they are not interested in electing anyone who might make sense, so they support Obama's nonsense, repeating it while themselves being unable to explain just what they're then repeating, what it may mean.

Obama harps about "tax cuts" when what he is describing, instead, is welfare as to those indivdiuals (not necessarily businesses, because Obama's selling his oil on this "$250,000.00" annual income figure by combining his pretense of being fair to "small business" and to individuals) who comprise his "90%" who he alleges he'll "cut taxes" for, even for the forty percent among those who don't pay federal income taxes (if you get a check from Obama and you haven't paid income taxes, you are not getting a "cut" or even an actual refund, but you're getting some of the personal property of other Americans that Obama has lifted so he can you off).

ON THE OTHER HAND, maybe Obama DOES know what he's talking about but he's using his snake-oil explanations to fool a lot of people who know very little to nothing about snake-oil.

Which is what I think Obama is doing: intentionally misleading people inorder to gain control over other people's property. Is there anything other than a deceptive Marxist? No, no there isn't.

Nancy Pelosi LIKES it, she really, really LIKES it! Finally, an Imaginary Energy Bill that Pelosi can really get excited about, imaginary drilling that avoids those messy details of reality! The Democrats get to say they're drilling while not drilling but imagining they are drilling, saying they are, but are not.

Our Democrat-Pelosi-Led House of Representatives passes a "no energy exploration" bill that declares they're "for drilling" (petroleum exploration and development) while they are not but saying they are. If you can make any sense of this, then you are among the Gang of 10 20, Republicans who fell for the ruse and joined in the Democrats' mind game. Which is invisible. Also a game. It is "HR 6899".

Democrats Pass Hoax Drilling Bill by Michelle Malkin

No-Energy Nancy's Phony Energy Plan by Marlo Lewis on National Review Online

Today's Greenwire (subscription required) reports that the House is expected to vote as soon as tomorrow on Democratic legislation that would "allow drilling more than 100 miles from the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and as close to 50 miles from the shore if coastal states agree to it."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is spearheading this legislation -- an obvious sign that the Green Left's longstanding opposition to drilling has become a political liability for Democrats in this election cycle.

However, although Pelosi appears to be bowing to political and economic reality, her proposed "compromise" is a cynical ploy that no self-respecting supply-sider will touch with a 2,000-foot oil rig.

Our friends at the Institute for Energy Research (IER) posted a devastating exposé of the Pelosi plan. As announced last week, the plan would:

-- Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.

-- Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.

-- Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska's coastal waters out to 50 miles.

-- Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.

The plan also includes poison pill provisions that President Bush is on record as opposing, such as new taxes on oil companies and a first-ever nationwide renewable-energy production quota for the electric power sector.

Nothing puts Pelosi's charade in clearer focus, though, than IER's charts showing how much oil the plan would lock up off the U.S. West coast. By banning new leases out to 50 miles, the Pelosi plan would permanently deny access to 100 percent of the technically recoverable oil off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, Northern California, and Central California, plus 95 percent of the oil off the coast of Southern California.

Pro-drilling lawmakers on the Hill would be well advised to wave these charts in front of the television cameras as often as possible...

(Continued, with graphics -- )