Celebrity Journalist: I Never Spoke to Hawaii Gov About Obama Birth Certificate

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jibeho
Just for the record here, WND is reporting the story of Evans alleged tall tale.

So can I take from your post that WND is a reputable news source? It has your personal endorsement as such?

There's no question in my mind about it's reputation.

They've hosted too much bogus information as (possible) fact, without any level of research or verification done on their part, and while reading what should be an objective article about this Obama birth certificate issue, I'm getting hit with a ton of ads advertising anti-Obama movies and gear.

Not what I would consider a reputable place for legit information on this issue at all.

- Lee

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

So, if Fox News lies and they are reporting the fact this guy lied...... Does that mean the guy really didn't lie?

Geeze! What a delima!

reply to post by bozzchem


There has already been many law suits and Obama fights every one. Apparently citizens and even military officers "have no standing" to make Obama show his qualification for the Presidency.

A law suit won't be necessary for the next election. Those that do have standing in ten States will require Obama to show his qualification for the Presidency.

I am certian Obama supporters are not worried about this since all those "birthers" are so nutty.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jibeho
Just for the record here, WND is reporting the story of Evans alleged tall tale.

So can I take from your post that WND is a reputable news source? It has your personal endorsement as such?

Just bumping this so the poster doesn't lose the opportunity to answer the question at hand.

So much for Evans claim to have 'misspoken' - this is a transcriptof the Audio on one of the radio interviews - you can listen to at the link - this is no mistake, it is a definitive statement!

Someone has clearly gotten to Evans and forced him to retract!

"Former United States congressman from Hawaii Neil Abercrombie has been a friend of mine for decades. When I spent time with Neil during the Obama inauguration in Washington, D.C., Neil told me that he was going to run for governor of Hawaii. Neil also told me when he was in college in Hawaii he was a friend of Obama's dad… and he remembered Barack, he called him Barry, when he was a kid. He's actually a very, very good friend of the president.

"Neil promised that when he became governor he was going to cut through all the red tape and get Obama's birth certificate and once and for all and end the stupid controversy," Evans said. "Yesterday I talked to Neil. Said that he searched everywhere using all of his power as governor. Looked at Kapi'olani Womens Childrens Hospital and Queens Medical Center where children were born back in that day. And he said, 'Mike, there is no Barack Obama birth certificate,'" Evans said. Read more: Abercrombie's buddy promises to grill guv on birth certificate www.wnd.com...

reply to post by whatukno

Wow..what a shock.

Misspeak (lie) just enough to get the disinfo machine spinning into enough people's heads, and it doesn't matter when the truth comes to light. Fascinating to watch no matter how often it happens, which pretty much non-stop these days.

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

He's using vague terminology because he's not owning it. He's still squirming enough to leave that disinfo worm in those minds.

Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
So much for Evans claim to have 'misspoken' - this is a transcriptof the Audio on one of the radio interviews - you can listen to at the link - this is no mistake, it is a definitive statement!

Someone has clearly gotten to Evans and forced him to retract!

Well, either that or he got popped for lying.

But you couldn't blame Obama for that, so....

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jibeho
Just for the record here, WND is reporting the story of Evans alleged tall tale.

So can I take from your post that WND is a reputable news source? It has your personal endorsement as such?

Just bumping this so the poster doesn't lose the opportunity to answer the question at hand.

On many issues yes they are reputable. Regarding the fable of Obama they have dared to tackle the subject and dig up evidence on Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. The whole story stinks. With regards to Evans they simply wrote an article based on the public interview that Evans' gave to the radio station.

WND published the Fox News lead regarding Evans' "misspeak"/lie. The whole story stinks.

Happy now? You must be taking your cues from KK. Still waiting on his response...

reply to post by JohhnyBGood

Originally posted by jibeho

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jibeho
Just for the record here, WND is reporting the story of Evans alleged tall tale.

So can I take from your post that WND is a reputable news source? It has your personal endorsement as such?

Just bumping this so the poster doesn't lose the opportunity to answer the question at hand.

On many issues yes they are reputable. Regarding the fable of Obama they have dared to tackle the subject and dig up evidence on Ann Dunham and Obama Sr. The whole story stinks. With regards to Evans they simply wrote an article based on the public interview that Evans' gave to the radio station.
WND published the Fox News lead regarding Evans' "misspeak"/lie. The whole story stinks.
Happy now? You must be taking your cues from KK. Still waiting on his response...

One's word is only as reliable as ones sources. Personally, I find WND every bit as reliable as Pravda, but hey, you've answered my question.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

One's word is only as reliable as ones sources. Personally, I find WND every bit as reliable as Pravda, but hey, you've answered my question.

Indeed. Much of my information has come directly from Obama's own mouth. He has contradicted his own story on multiple ocassions as has his wife.

Obama stated in a speech back in 2007 that he credits the famous MLK march on Selma for getting his parents together by bringing Obama Sr. to Hawaii to study and of course bringing little Barry into the world. Problem, Selma happened in 1965 Obama was born in 1961 apparently.

During a conference in 2009 Obama stated that he was 3 months old when the Bay of Pigs invasion occurred. That would place his birthday somewhere in January 1961 not the official August 1961.

Michelle Obama stated publicly on the campaign trail in 2008 that Ann Dunham was very young and very single when she had Obama.

So, if these are my sources how good is my word? Perhaps, they are just misspeaking and I am full of !@#$?

Something to chew on

On Wednesday, I did the math that most of the mainstream media couldn’t do in March 2007. I asked how Barack Obama could have told a Selma audience that the 1965 March on Selma resulted in his conception when he was born in 1961. I also challenged Obama’s assertion that the Kennedy administration could have been responsible for his father’s arrival in America when his conception predated Kennedy’s oath of office. The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs delves deeper into the Kennedy myth of fingerprints on Obama’s birth, and finds little basis in fact for it:

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

This gets history wrong on several counts. First, the timing is incorrect, as I noted. The airlifts started before Kennedy took office. It never had official sanction as a government program, but only private support from the Kennedy Foundation — and only after Obama Sr. had arrived in Hawaii for his studies. The Kennedys didn’t create the idea of the airlift, either; it began with eventual Kenyan political martyr Tom Mboya.

Why the deception? Obama’s speech had two purposes: to increase his authenticity as a black politician by tying himself to Selma and the general civil-rights movement, and to assume the mantle of Kennedy’s Camelot. Both are essentially falsehoods. Selma had nothing to do with his conception or his formative years; by the time the march occured, his father had already left the family and returned to Kenya (1963). The Kennedy administration has nothing at all to do with his existence, as I pointed out by doing the math that shows that Obama would have had to have been almost three months premature to have been conceived even on JFK’s inauguration.

This exposes Obama as a politician who plays fast and loose with his life story to transform himself into whatever his audience wants to see. For those who want to see a post-racial candidate, he downplays race as an issue. When in Chicago, he hangs out with radicals like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Bernadette Dohrn for authenticity. For Democrats wanting a return to JFK, he ties himself to the Kennedys in a false and strangely sexual manner. And for those who want a candidate with civil-rights movement credentials, he offers the same kind of connection to a famous march that obviously had nothing to do with his birth.

In other words, Barack Obama is a phony. Had the media that covered his speech in Selma in March 2007 thought to do the math, Democrats could have figured this out nine months before the first primary contests. Now they’re stuck with him — unless the superdelegates want to hand the nomination to the Tuzla Dash candidate instead..

hotair.com...


www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

One's word is only as reliable as ones sources. Personally, I find WND every bit as reliable as Pravda, but hey, you've answered my question.

Indeed. Much of my information has come directly from Obama's own mouth. He has contradicted his own story on multiple ocassions as has his wife.

Obama stated in a speech back in 2007 that he credits the famous MLK march on Selma for getting his parents together by bringing Obama Sr. to Hawaii to study and of course bringing little Barry into the world. Problem, Selma happened in 1965 Obama was born in 1961 apparently.

During a conference in 2009 Obama stated that he was 3 months old when the Bay of Pigs invasion occurred. That would place his birthday somewhere in January 1961 not the official August 1961.

Michelle Obama stated publicly on the campaign trail in 2008 that Ann Dunham was very young and very single when she had Obama.

So, if these are my sources how good is my word? Perhaps, they are just misspeaking and I am full of !@#$?

Something to chew on

On Wednesday, I did the math that most of the mainstream media couldn’t do in March 2007. I asked how Barack Obama could have told a Selma audience that the 1965 March on Selma resulted in his conception when he was born in 1961. I also challenged Obama’s assertion that the Kennedy administration could have been responsible for his father’s arrival in America when his conception predated Kennedy’s oath of office. The Washington Post’s Michael Dobbs delves deeper into the Kennedy myth of fingerprints on Obama’s birth, and finds little basis in fact for it:

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala., a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his “very existence” to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which “history replays itself” and by how “two generations of two families — separated by distance, culture and wealth — can intersect in strange and wonderful ways.”

It is a touching story — but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama’s claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama’s father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

This gets history wrong on several counts. First, the timing is incorrect, as I noted. The airlifts started before Kennedy took office. It never had official sanction as a government program, but only private support from the Kennedy Foundation — and only after Obama Sr. had arrived in Hawaii for his studies. The Kennedys didn’t create the idea of the airlift, either; it began with eventual Kenyan political martyr Tom Mboya.

Why the deception? Obama’s speech had two purposes: to increase his authenticity as a black politician by tying himself to Selma and the general civil-rights movement, and to assume the mantle of Kennedy’s Camelot. Both are essentially falsehoods. Selma had nothing to do with his conception or his formative years; by the time the march occured, his father had already left the family and returned to Kenya (1963). The Kennedy administration has nothing at all to do with his existence, as I pointed out by doing the math that shows that Obama would have had to have been almost three months premature to have been conceived even on JFK’s inauguration.

This exposes Obama as a politician who plays fast and loose with his life story to transform himself into whatever his audience wants to see. For those who want to see a post-racial candidate, he downplays race as an issue. When in Chicago, he hangs out with radicals like Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Bernadette Dohrn for authenticity. For Democrats wanting a return to JFK, he ties himself to the Kennedys in a false and strangely sexual manner. And for those who want a candidate with civil-rights movement credentials, he offers the same kind of connection to a famous march that obviously had nothing to do with his birth.

In other words, Barack Obama is a phony. Had the media that covered his speech in Selma in March 2007 thought to do the math, Democrats could have figured this out nine months before the first primary contests. Now they’re stuck with him — unless the superdelegates want to hand the nomination to the Tuzla Dash candidate instead..

hotair.com...


www.washingtonpost.com...


bravo jibeho, lets hear a response to this....

'NUFF SAID

edit on 27-1-2011 by jibeho because: error