Beck Busts Obama Persona Big-Time

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Beck Busts Obama Persona Big-Time

It looks like the American people have elected a president that doesn't exist.

Glenn Beck just did a major discredit on Obama similar to what several of us did with James Valliant's PARC (The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics).

He has taken Obama's own statements from his speeches and compared them to Obama's books and public records. Timelines don't add up. Facts are fabricated out of thin air. And on and on.

This is not just about normal politician lies and promises. This is about Obama's actual history. Obama's lying is excessive--humongously excessive. His life is a total fairy taie. He is rewriting history even as he lives it.

For instance, Obama told a story about how his parents participated in the civil rights march on Selma, Alabama years ago. [EDIT from MSK: I made an error here about the participation of Obama's parents. I was called on it and I corrected it in a post below.] Then they got together because of all the good-guy vibes and, a few months thereafter, little Barack was born. The trouble is Obama was born 4 years before the march on Selma.

If this were the only whopper, that would be one thing. But in terms of one thing, it's one thing after another. There are so many instances, you have to come to the conclusion that this is the planned work of a team.

But here's what I see. These idiots (Obama and his team) have bought into the truth that most people follow a storyline much more than they follow facts so deeply they thought they could throw away the facts altogether.

Well, they're about to learn a corollary to that truth. When people discover that the story they honestly believed in is false, and it was told to them by a person intent on deceiving them, their backlash is unforgiving.

Here is the first salvo on The Blaze that is taking off like wildfire. Literally. Glenn just showed the mosiac (something like a word cloud) on his radio program this morning (I get to see the video of it). The mosaic showed that this story is currently getting the more traffic than any story The Blaze has ever put up. It's a monster difference.

Do You Know Anybody Like Obama? Beck’s Latest Exposé Could Go Down in History
by Tiffany Gabbay
May 10, 2012
The Blaze

From the article:

Thursday evening’s episode of the Glenn Beck Program will likely go down in the history books as one of the very few (if not only) recorded instances of another human being exposing President Obama’s myriad personal and professional inconsistencies in such a detailed and profound way. In fact, viewers might even consider burning themselves a DVD copy to serve as a record of what historians will one day prove.

On Friday, The Blaze will provide more details on the president’s past deeds and associations, along with an additional clip from Beck‘s Thursday’s broadcast. Until then, ask yourself the following question: Do you know anybody like Obama?

And here is the video, which is a part of The Glenn Beck Program of May 10, 2012 (Thursday).

Expect to see this stuff take off on the mainstream after a bit. Also, Glenn said he has a backlog of clips like this that will give him material for a full month of programs and he intends to push this one hard.

Glenn took down Acorn, Van Jones and some other powers that be. I believe he will practically guarantee the election of Romney with this campaign.

Michael

[Selene]

Expect to see this stuff take off on the mainstream after a bit. Also, Glenn said he has a backlog of clips like this that will give him material for a full month of programs and he intends to push this one hard.

Glenn took down Acorn, Van Jones and some other powers that be. I believe he will practically guarantee the election of Romney with this campaign.

Michael

Thanks Michael:

Hopefully Glenn's security detail will not allow him to wander home alone from the local eatery/bar like Breitbart!

Curiously, the only person who saw him fall "like a sack of potatoes," a twenty-nine (29) year old who was walking his dog when he saw Breitbart collapse.

He rushed to his side and states that "He knew he was dead." He reports that Breitbart's face was "bright red" and there was a clear "white band" around the hairline of his head.

These observations have been sent to Michael Baden, former chief medical examiner for the State of New York and Cyril Wecht for their evaluation.

Adam

[william.scherk]

For instance, Obama told a story about how his parents participated in the civil rights march on Selma, Alabama years ago.

This retailing is inaccurate: Obama did not tell a story about his parents having been in Selma. In a speech to the congregation of in the Brown Chapel on March 4, 2007, then-Senator Obama said this:

Yet something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "Ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children. When men who had PhD's decided that's enough and we're going to stand up for our dignity. That sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

What happened in Selma, Alabama and Birmingham also stirred the conscience of the nation.

If this were the only whopper, that would be one thing. But in terms of one thing, it's one thing after another. There are so many instances, you have to come to the conclusion that this is the planned work of a team.

It is a mark of the intense criticism that attends Presidential races, that Obama's remarks were savaged at the time for the murky time-line. Even Snopes has a page on this particular issue. Beck is crawling down the driveway after a story that has long since been made news ...

On the details, I think it depends on which side of the electoral coin one finds oneself, whether biased for or against the incumbent President. If one opposes Obama to the bone, it is right and proper (in political terms) to fish out anything and everything that could possibly discredit the prez. Same with the other side -- those who seek a triumphant second term will quite cagily avoid the obvious stumbles along the campaign trail.

If your scope is limited to ticking off list items contra Obama, there is a veritable smorgasbord of pre-existing conditions to dress up the list. If you are a Obama==Muslim terrorist, there is material for you. If you hold to a planned destruction of America, plenty of horror has been retailed, from FEMA detention camps, secret deals with USA enemies to deception surrounding his birth.

Although Beck's series of exposes may indeed bring down the President just as he destroyed ACORN, Van Jones and um, other bad things, it cannot be assured.

I am more interested in how the Republicans sane and insane deal with two issues that Obama's side will play again and again over the next months: gay marriage and women's health.

-- we have noted the widening gap in women's support -- especially independents -- between Romney/Obama. Does the President's position (flip flop) mean anything to Beck? Will he comment on gay marriage? Will the libertarian in him battle past the Mormon conservative anti-gay stance he has crafted? Will he take any Republican to task for their aims to Federalize state marriage, or to insert anti-gay marriage amendments to the Constitution (per Romney)? Will Beck get off the Slut Walk long enough to ask about reproductive health, the Transvaginal Express, Republican attempts to curtail and repress abortion 'rights'?

I doubt it. The rodeo clown and conspiracy-maven goes where he goes, down the well-trodden path of non-journalism. He is hardly in control of his own editorial staff -- today's Blaze stories include some bullshit about Harry Reid (Mormon) who makes a distinction between a 'civil state' and his religion. Fair enough to charge Reid with pandering. Fair enough in politics to fail to quote his words. Fair to say that Reid's position is incomprehensible. By avoiding the details, the Blaze chugs on its chosen path.

As for the tangled Republican mess over women's health (in the lady bits) and its nationwide campaigns to curb and control, will the Blaze take a fair shot at reporting? For sure, without a doubt -- and I am Marie of Roumania.

As an advocate for conservative verities, Beck's influence has waned. We can pretend he still commands a nation-wide audience a la Rush, but he does not.

Glenn took down Acorn, Van Jones and some other powers that be. I believe he will practically guarantee the election of Romney with this campaign.

Your prognostication is noted. See you at the Election Night Party!

Edited May 11, 2012 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This retailing is inaccurate...

William,

I made a poor supposition and stand corrected. I should have been less in a hurry.

Here is what is on the video I embedded (which you obviously did not view). I went ahead and transcribed it. Barack Obama is speaking.

There's some good craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided, "We know that in the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. But something's stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama... because some folks were willing to march across a bridge." And so they got together and Barack Obama Junior was born.

Although Obama's parents did not participate in the march, they apparently time traveled and saw what was going to happen in the past in Selma before getting down to nookie.

Thus they were able to be inspired by Selma, which was to happen 4 years later, enough to produce little Barack 4 years earlier.

It's all kinda confusing...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

As an addition to my last post, you really should become familiar with Beck's work before asking leading questions couched in caricature leftie-speak. (I refer to the way the pinko bleeding-heart Kool-Aid drinking loons describe Beck... )

For instance, Glenn Beck was fervently against Romney the entire primary campaign (for some of the very reasons you presumed he ignored) and is now supporting Romney, but only as the lesser of two evils.

You sound... uhm... biased.

As to gay marriage, a report of Obama's statement is on The Blaze. Beck showed the mosiac and people were simply not reading it. He claimed that he heard there were similar results at other news networks. Take that at whatever value you wish to attribute to it.

Apparently, the mainstream press is reporting this issue, especially as a person with a megaphone as big as Obama has sounded off, but the mainstream audience is not consuming it.

It's a war of vituperation for pundits only. As the institutions where they work tend to be ratings based, let's see if this issue fades or they can keep it alive, or maybe something comes up around the gay marriage issue that catches the public's fancy.

Michael

[Selene]

I am more interested in how the Republicans sane and insane deal with two issues that Obama's side will play again and again over the next months: gay marriage and women's health.

-- we have noted the widening gap in women's support -- especially independents -- between Romney/Obama.

William::

Objectively the gay marriage issue, is an electoral debacle for O'bama. Note these actual votes throughout the United States:

Following is a list of each state that has voted on the issue. Unless noted, each vote involved a constitutional marriage amendment. Passage of the various proposals has come by an average margin of 67-33 percent.

1998

Alaska, 68-32 percent

Hawaii, 69-31 percent

2000

California, 61-39 percent[

1

]

Nevada, 70-30 percent (first of two required votes)

key state for the President - he must win this in November.

2002

Nevada, 67-33 percent (second of two required votes)

2004

Arkansas, 75-25 percent

Georgia, 76-24 percent

Kentucky, 75-25 percent

Louisiana, 78-22 percent

Michigan, 59-41 percent

<<<< another important state for the President to win and getting more doubtful each month...

Mississippi, 86-14 percent

Missouri, 71-29 percent

<<<< extremely important state and as of right now the President loses it...

Montana, 67-33 percent

North Dakota, 73-27 percent

Ohio, 62-38 percent

<<<< critical swing state and the President is going to lose it, possibly lose it big...

Oklahoma, 76-24 percent

Oregon, 57-43 percent

Utah, 66-34 percent

2005

Kansas, 70-30 percent

2006

Alabama, 81-19 percent

Colorado, 56-44 percent

<<<<this is the one state where this issue helps him...lot's of liberals and libertarians have relocated here from California...

Idaho, 63-37 percent

South Carolina, 78-22 percent

South Dakota, 52-48 percent

Tennessee, 81-19 percent

Virginia, 57-43 percent

<<<<critical swing state - too close to call, but trending away from the President...

Wisconsin, 59-41 percent

<<<<the President will lose this state and it might be big...

2008

Arizona, 56-44 percent[

2

]

California, 52-48 percent

<<<<turnout will be lower here, but cannot imagine him losing the state...

Florida, 62-38 percent

<<<< absolutely a lose for the President...

2009

Maine, 53-47 percent[

3

]

2012

North Carolina, 61-39 percent

<<<< a big lose for the President and he will lose this state in November and it also may be a big loss...

Notes:

1. 
   
   California’s 2000 vote was an initiative and not a constitutional amendment.
   
   
2. 
   
   Arizona voters defeated a marriage amendment in 2006, only to pass one two years later.
   
   
3. 
   
   Maine’s initiative was not a constitutional amendment but a “people’s veto” that overturned a gay “marriage” law.
   
   

=============================

As to the "women's health" issue, the "good" polling data that I have seen which includes in house internals that are not public appears to indicate a net zero [0] gain for O'bama on this issue. However, it is still too early to see a trend. At present the trending is towards zero [0] to a net loss for O'bama on this issue.

Additionally, I would be interested to know whether the independent gap amongst women polling that you have seen uses likely voters as their polling selection pool, or, registered voters.

Finally, where was the distribution of the respondents in terms of electoral voting states which is the only factor that will decide this next election.

You have to remember what a unique system we have in the United States. We are not a democracy and we do not directly elect the President.

This is an extremely difficult concept to wrap your mind around, but the more I evaluate this method, the more incredibly thankful I am for the design that our founders created.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am more interested in how the Republicans sane and insane deal with two issues...

I can't resist this one.

Hopefully the Republicans will deal with issues a little better than the liberal lady did in the following:

 

(From here: MSNBC Anchor Cuts off Contributor's Mic over Romney Defense - this came up on Drudge.)

 

Ya' think Hall convinced anyone of anything?

 

Maybe she got some moderates to vote for Obama?

 

Heh.

 

This election is going to be fun.

 

 

Michael

[Dan Haggerty]

I wouldn't be too confident in Michigan. While Detroit has been tumbling in ruin slowly since the 60's heyday the fact is the unions and apparatus there still is a force. Outside of a few counties on the west side of the State where I live, it is all red so the east side weighs heavily on the general vote. There is a reason Obama spends most of his time over there outside of a flyby for his alternative energy *cough* corporate welfare *cough* program. The silver lining to the fact we keep loosing people (we actually have negative population growth) is that the UAW here effects elections less than they use to.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to bounce off another issue that William raised: bias on The Blaze.

This has aggravated me at times, but I did a little research and thinking and here is what I came up with.

1. Material gets presented on The Blaze for two reasons--and often the two are not in the same post. The first is to generate a certain kind of audience and make sure the numbers swell. The second is to present sound--but curated--news from a libertarian/conservative view.

The first is outright pandering at times and that is the part that irritates me. Think about the audience for The National Enquirer and you get very close to the profile they pander to. Celebrity gossip, UFO's, the works.

Added to this pandering, there seems to be a restriction on moderate views in the comments when buzz-words are involved. Several times I have presented comments with words like "oppression," but presenting an argument or question that does not normally go along with left-wing rhetoric, and those comments have not been published. No reason is ever given, but I have tested this a few times and the buzz-word test seems to be the standard.

The trick they are using is to keep the polarization at fever-pitch. The kind of comment I have tested--the kind that has not gone through--makes people think and dilutes the polarization. I guess that's poison to their objective.

So in the comments, you will find people viciously bashing each other--and the other side of their political divide, or saying neutral things that no one really cares about. (This last for relief and to not offend a certain target profile.) There are trolls, lefties posing as caricature right-wingers, some actual dumbass right-wingers, some actual dumbass left-wingers, some religious people and lots of everyday middle-American folks.

You will not find much critical thinking in the comments, You will find lots of opposing opinions.

2. One of the reasons, I believe, for this focus on polarization is commercial. I believe The Blaze is the wide mouth of a sales and audience funnel, so it is made to attract more than promote. There is much that gets on The Blaze, for instance, that would not stand a chance in hell of getting on GBTV (not even on The Blaze's TV side, Real News From The Blaze) or be published in a book at Mercury Ink.

Some of the bad stuff does get on his radio show, but he has criticized it--at least the times I have heard. Glenn's radio show is characterized by analyzing current events amidst a lot of preaching and satire, so this criticism fits right in. The radio show is like a second narrowing stage of his sales and audience funnel.

3. In 2011, Glenn hired Betsy Morgan to be the president of The Blaze. Know what her previous gig was? CEO of The Huffington Post.

That's right. He raided top talent directly from his enemy.

If you ignore the ideological difference, you can see many parallels between HuffPo and The Blaze. Betsy Morgan is one thing they have in common. I have read that Glenn agreed to let Morgan run The Blaze in the manner she best sees fit, but keeping to Glenn's general ideological direction.

4. The Blaze has become a major online news curation site. According to Quantcast, it currently gets over 12 million visits a month from approximately 4 million different people, and they stay on the site long enough to generate over 69 million page views a month.

5. Enough of the good stuff gets on it to use it as a semi-reliable source. I quote it sometimes here on OL, but I have commented about my dissatisfaction on The Blaze. Incredibly, it has gone through. Glenn's GBTV motto is, "The truth lives here." I have talked about The Blaze as where the truth sometimes lives.

Conclusion

I guess Glenn has to do this stuff to skate the line between financial viability and balance with integrity. I don't have to like it, though. And I don't.

Still, I am glad there is a resource like The Blaze. It does get a small-government libertarian view out into the trenches and in front of people who would otherwise not consider it.

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael,

Your informed and objective analysis of the Blaze (which I have never read actually) really impresses me. I know how intensively you have studied internet markets and thought about the aims and tactics.

What I would like to know is, in this area of influencing ideas and voted, do the ends justify the means?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I would like to know is, in this area of influencing ideas and voted, do the ends justify the means?

Carol,

This is a double-edged sword and I believe a simple answer is impossible.

The media in the USA is incredibly corrupt. If you want to take it on and actually generate a mainstream audience, you have to get some dirt on you. Otherwise, be content to be a small fringe player.

Glenn Beck is going for the big brass ring. And he has innovated a new Internet and broadcast crossover media doing it. His outfit is one of the few (VERY few) Internet news organizations that is financially successful using a continuity payment scheme like cable TV does.

But it's like becoming a politician. How far do you compromise before you lose your soul? However, if you don't compromise some, you don't get any of your ideas passed into reality.

Like I said, I understand why the large part of the funnel does not have to be as pure as the narrow part, but I still don't have to like it. I guess as long as the gross of the monkeyshines stays on The Blaze, it works as a business strategy.

But when you do that, there is always a danger of the organization losing its soul. That's a real risk.

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael, forgive me, but for an Objectivist a simple answer should be possible, although I think even Ayn Rand would have twisted and turned inside out on this question."The other side does it" is not a response, if you are on the moral, the right side. To distort or misrepresent facts of reality, in order to "funnel" people to reality... is this justifiable?

[Selene]

Purity of purpose in a street fight will get you dead Carol.

As Michael observed, you will get muddy and dirty "rasslin with them that pigs." It is how pure you can keep your fundamental ethics and morals that counts when you decide to jump over the purity gate and get into the pigsty.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To distort or misrepresent facts of reality, in order to "funnel" people to reality... is this justifiable?

Carol,

I don't like it.

But it's kind of like Ayn Rand going to a state-funded college in Soviet Russia. If you want to play and there is no where else, you either play where the game is and try to adapt as best you can, or you don't play at all.

It's a context thing.

So I understand it, but I still don't like it.

btw - People are not being funneled to reality. They are being funneled toward purchases (like being subscribers to GBTV) and participation in the Beck community.

Social-wise, this mostly means FreedomWorks and FreedomConnector, which Beck supports but are not his babies. And there are some other initiatives, like the upcoming Restoring Love rally in the Dallas Cowboys Stadium at the end of July, which I believe is already sold out. There is also the Mercury One charity, which is doing very well.

That's what a sales funnel does.

Don't forget the weeding-out process, too. Assholes don't do well when the good guys get together. It sounds corny, but that's the way it works. They get shamed into silence.

I'm still impressed that we left the Washington Mall cleaner than what we found it during the Restoring Honor rally. Nobody organized that. We just did it. Somewhere around half a million people (some liberal reports to the contrary notwithstanding). Not one arrest. No fights. It was all good.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I am more interested in how the Republicans sane and insane deal with two issues that Obama's side will play again and again over the next months: gay marriage and women's health.

WSS,

Barack Obama and his water carriers will keep trying to emphasize these issues in order to divert attention from economic conditions and an overweening Federal government.

I doubt it will work. Gay marriage is less of a priority with voters nationwide than "climate change." Barely on the radar screen for most.

And the "women's health" issue is a complete joke.

First, Obama thought he could reap electoral gains by instructing the Empress of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, to issue suppressive measures against the Catholic Church. Didn't work. If Rush Limbaugh hadn't acted like an ass over Sandra Fluke, she would have had her 15 minutes of fame instead of a month and a half.

Second, Nancy Pelosi and her enablers in the media are trying to protect a slush fund under the Empress's control (supposedly for "demonstration projects"). Obama and Sebelius desperately want to stave off cuts to Medicare Advantage (subsidies for a type of supplemental insurance) that were enacted in the wonderful bill that had to squeak through Congress so we could find out what was in it. Using the money to keep Medicare Advantage going for another year means spending for a different purpose than was intended in the legislation that appropriated it. Pelosi is brazenly pretending that draining the slush fund would be an attack on "women's health."

Obama's recent, umm, discovery that his feelings about gay marriage have, umm, evolved will make some donors to his campaign happy. It may increase turnout among his college student supporters who aren't feeling so enthused about him the second time around. At the expense of depressing turnout among African-American and Latino churchgoers. A wash for Obama, at best.

And how are the Democrats going to react to the recent vote in North Carolina? Move their convention out of Charlotte?

I say this as a supporter of abortion rights and gay marriage. And I didn't vote for Mitt Romney in the primary.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

Robert:

Spot on evaluations of the political non-impact of both issues.

Now this "evilution" that this Peter Principle President arrived at this past week, is it different than his position in support of gay marriage that he espoused in 1996?

"According to the Windy City Times, during the 1996 race for the Illinois State Senate, President-Elect Barack Obama gave statements that expressed an 'unequivocal support for gay marriage.'"

From the WCT's press release:

President-elect Obama's answer to a 1996 Outlines newspaper question on marriage was: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of the phrase "civil unions". [Outlines purchased Windy City Times in 2000 and merged companies.]"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here we go. It starts.

 

Part One — The Fiction and Non-Fiction of Obama

The Blaze

 

I won't quote from the article right now because there's just too much to quote. It will be highly rewarding if you read it or even skim it, even if you are against what it stands for and hate Glenn Beck.

 

I predict this is going to be the root and foundation of a new public narrative of Obama's life that will grow bigger and bigger as the election draws near. And I predict it will poison the image Obama constructed of himself in the minds of many independents and even former Obama supporters.

 

Here's the video:

 

 

It's going to be one interesting week in the mainstream press. Let's see how long they can ignore this onslaught as the right-wing press, TV shows, radio, blogs, social media, etc. start spreading it and discussing it like wildfire. If Beck's own numbers from the audience at The Blaze are any indication, it actually will be wildfire.

 

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Thanks. Just confirms what I have seen in his eyes when I freeze frame some of his speeches. He flat out lies and he is a vicious, angry and hateful person deep in his soul.

And he has another side to his personality that you can see with his wife and children. He is one of those unique individuals who have two distinct personalities that constantly tear at each other.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

I just saw the Snopes thing trying to debunk the Obama lies criticism that William mentioned earlier. I had to blink several times because it is spin, not fact. I thought Snopes was devoted to fact-checking. I think I just lost some of the respect I formerly held for Snopes.

I found two Snopes articles on a quick Google search.

Here is the first, but I only skimmed it: Obama's 50 Lies. This treats an email that was circulated in May 2008. The tone is debunking strawmen, which is what gave me pause. It's a spin piece with lots of obvious stuff left out, not a pro-and-con examination of the issues behind the urban legend like I am used to reading on Snopes. It rebuts the email as understood by a spin-doctor, not the issues in the email.

But the second is what made me really blink: Say What, Barack?

This deals with Obama's speech at Selma and the anachronism about his birth in his speech.

Rather than quote Obama's words, the Snopes article quoted a summary from an editorial by Paul R. Hollrah. This editorial is identified by a link that no longer works. I found the article on a separate search, though. It's here.

Want to see the "fact" that Snopes is trying to rebut?

Obama told his audience that because some folks had the courage to “march across a bridge” in Selma, Ala., his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barack Obama, Jr., was born Aug. 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn’t occur until March 7, 1965, almost four years after Obama was born.

Here is how Snopes "debunked it:

Senator Obama might be considered guilty of engaging in little pandering here by trying to imply a direct line between the 1965 Selma, Alabama, marches and his personal background (since he was speaking in Selma at the time). However, the tenor of his speech... (blah blah blah)

So according to Snopes, Obama implied something, he insinuated it. He didn't say it, so he didn't lie. He simply did a "little pandering," which is what a politician does (wink wink).

Let's repeat the transcription of the video Glenn Beck presented of Obama speaking:

There's some good craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided, "We know that in the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. But something's stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama... because some folks were willing to march across a bridge." And so they got together and Barack Obama Junior was born.

Dayaamm!.

Obama outright said it.

He didn't imply it.

He pandered (and not just "a little"), that is true, but he pandered with a lie, not with an insinuation.

So Snopes is full of it.

Rather than fact-check, Snopes tried to debunk an editorial, one that was even correct on this point.

I knew the media was corrupt here in the USA on selling the sanitized version of Obama, but I never thought Snopes was on the payroll.

Hell and damnation... there goes another one. I truly feel disappointed. Deeply disappointed. I'm not joking.

So here is how I'm going to use Snopes from now on. I will no longer quote it without making a disclaimer that the information might be spin, and I will double-check everything I can before accepting anything it publishes.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't like the spin policy on The Blaze, but at least Glenn Beck tells the people in his audience--several times a week, in fact, and in different venues--to not believe anything he says, but instead do their own homework and look up things for themselves.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Top this (Obama): The soldiers in Afghanistan are "fighting on my behalf."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It looks like the left is going to do the Obama image makeover, too.

The ‘bribe’ to silence Wright

May 12, 2012 (updated May 13)

from and interview of Reverend Jeremiah Wright by Edward Klein

New York Post

This thing appeared in the featured central No. 1 space on Drudge.

From the article:

‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

“He offered you money?”

“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

“How much money did he offer you?”

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

Then during a secret meeting between Reverend Wright and Obama:

And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’

“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’

“And he said, ‘It’s going to get worse if you go out there and speak. It’s really going to get worse.’

“And he was so right.”

I see a feeding frenzy coming. And it ain't going to be pretty.

The thing that is starting to bother me is, if the left is jumping on it this quick, what do they have up their sleeve?

I dearly hope it's not something really stupid like assassination.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, they're going to dump Biden and run Clinton in in his place.

--Brant

maybe a phony assassination attempt?--war?

[Selene]

Top this (Obama): The soldiers in Afghanistan are "fighting on my behalf."

--Brant

Brant:

Bar none, the most despicable statement I have ever heard by a United States President. I would like to know from folks here if they ever heard another US President say that:

The soldiers in __________ are fighting on MY behalf!

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Top this (Obama): The soldiers in Afghanistan are "fighting on my behalf."

--Brant

Brant:

Bar none, the most despicable statement I have ever heard by a United States President. I would like to know from folks here if they ever heard another US President say that:

The soldiers in __________ are fighting on MY behalf!

Adam

The only thing missing is for our Wehrmacht to take a personal oath to Our Fearless Leader.

And it looks like we are going to have 4 more years of this Abomination. The Republicans who I consider stupid beyond belief are running a totally bogus dude who has nothing to recommend them. And the Republican faithful have confirmed their party's stupidity in the primaries.

The last thing we need is Mitt the Plastic Mormon.

I fear for the Republic.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

Bob K,

Don't be so pessimistic. Mittens isn't a great candidate—to put it mildly—but to beat Obama this year, you may not need a great candidate.

Robert C