Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Haw

Obama was born 1961

Kenya was formed in 1964

Birthers prove to the world why nobody takes them seriously.

reply to post by Ahabstar

The presumption mentioned here is that Obama would also have to submit his own bio to Who's Who. You would have to read my previous post to catch that. I figure that you have but are a bit distracted.

I saw your post about Who's Who...did anyone go find him in it?

I'm not focusing on Who's Who because the article is talking about this one specific bio. There are other examples of bios of him that state his birthplace as Hawaii...someone posted one previously in this thread.

What we have is them currently claiming to have manufactured the bio in the book touted to literary publishers. Could be that they were mistaken. Could be that they are claiming that they were mistaken because they have already been contacted by Obama's staff. If I had the indisputable fact that Obama was born in Kenya due to a professional relationship (literary agent) but was told by my former (or maybe still current client) to lie... I probably would especially if there was going to be a dump truck of money coming and if money was my motivator. Fact is that money is not my motivator and I would sing like a canary, but then again Obama and I do not have a professional relationship.

We have a statement from the author that it was a mistake.

Anything else is pure factless speculation.

Well, except we don't really have any facts. Facts are indisputable. At best we have "truths" Truth is whatever we want and accept it to be.

We have first hand testimony...that is good enough for the courts...it is good enough for me.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Mods please stop them from getting away with using pejorative labels designed to infuriate and upset people.

Look there is a terminology for people who question the President's origins, and it is only used to attack and ridicule them. It is not used in any legitimate format, but rather as a trolling mechanism to create mud slinging matches and fight over pointlessness.

Or is it ok if we can just name call them back?
Like guy 1: You birthers
guy 2 : You idiots

Is this how ATS should be? Or should we have higher standards and attempt to avoid the petty name calling?
Just an honest question.

How exactly is "birthers" a pejorative label...it is a descriptive label from my perspective.

Birthers: Ones that have issue with Obama's birth place.

It's offensive because you can construe it however you wish (you already pigeonholed "birthers" as being hateful, without explaining yourself after I called you on it).

Best I can tell, the issue isn't where Obama was born. He could have been born in Hong Kong or Stockholm for all any "birther" cares. The issue is the constitution. But I'm sure you'd be more than happy to defend President Obama on that front too.

reply to post by Maluhia

So Obama either agreed to their game of "a student born in Kenya becomes a success in America" (disturbing on its own) OR he didn't read it OR it's true.

If there's another choice I'm open to hear it.

Yes, there are many other options.

- He never saw the bio until it was printed.
- He never saw the bio at all
- He proofed a bio and pointed out a mistake and it was never corrected
- He was asked to proof it and never did (Yes, I'm saying Obama can make mistakes too).
- The version he proofed didn't have that part in it and it was added last minute
- 1000's of other baseless speculations...the possibilities are endless.


And here is the thing...all of those above are completely baseless...just like yours...and they all have the same likelyhood of being true.


But we have a first hand accont of the author of the bio saying it was her mistake...so why speculate when you have someone telling you exactly what happened?

OMG BREAKING NEWS: Obama was born on planet earth

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by beezzer

 

So much for Obama. He isn't even smart enough to proof a bio for HIS FIRST BOOK?

Thanks for pointing this out - I did the same about a hundred pages ago, but less forthrightly. To me THAT is the biggest question.

So Obama either agreed to their game of "a student born in Kenya becomes a success in America" (disturbing on its own) OR he didn't read it OR it's true.

If there's another choice I'm open to hear it.

edit on 18-5-2012 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)

Hologram. You forgot; it could be a hologram!

At best he lied to either way. He lied about being born in Kenya or he's lying now.
Because I can't believe his people wouldn't have spotted this earlier. And/or.....why didn't this lady speak out sooner or correct this error earlier herself? Was she not aware of the controversy? She was figuratively holding the Holy Grail.

Where did she get this information if not from Obama himself?
Did she just make it up along the way? Is this a novel or non-fiction?

Where did she get the WORD 'Kenya' from?

Why did Breidbart say he had the 'smoking gun' on Obama then, die days later?

This is giving me a truth-ache. I gotta take a rest.

reply to post by sonnny1

Hmmmm.

I remember a few people saying Ron Paul needed to come clean,and was ultimately responsible about some racist newsletters.....


How the shoe doesn't fit,when it comes to Obama,hey?

I would actually call those who said that hypocrites

And I would say apples and oranges.

A bio written in the third person vs a newsletter written in first person under someones name.

Yes...those are EXACTLY the same

Terms like "birthers" "Truthers" "Tea baggers" etc ARE, used in a negative way. If you ownt admit that basic truth then there is no sense arguing the point. while on the surface they may seem innocuous, they have been used as a way of labeling people that is very much negative.
If I call you "Big shot" am i being kind? On the surface it's not negative, correct? But you understand the subtext and true meaning of it. It's the USE of the words and not the words themselves that carry meaning here.'
So, yes, when someone is labeled a "birther" there is a negative connotation. I'd like to know who, exactly, first referred to those who believe that Obama was not born in the United States as "birthers" and what their intentions were.
I would count myself among those who believe that, at the very least, there is something going on with Obama's birth but would not call myself a "birther" because of the way the term is used and because of the way those like me have been portrayed.
Using the term is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As was stated previously, the label is (supposedly) earned because of the "crazy" stuff these "birthers" have come up with. But that's painting things with a broad stroke to say the least. A few bad apples doesn't spoil the bunch. There are always those nutcases who identify themselves with ideas or movements, but one can't judge the ENTIRE idea/movement based on those few "bad apples". If that were how we judged the voracity of any idea/movement/claim then nothing would be believable. For every nutcase there are plenty more people that aren't nuts.
One has to be fair (something, apparently, not believed in these days by most) in ones assessment of ideas/movements/ et al. To simply dismiss them because of the fringe is dishonest at best.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

We have first hand testimony...that is good enough for the courts...it is good enough for me.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." -- Bill Clinton

So much for a "first-hand account" as indisputable facts. People can say anything, doesn't make it fact.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

It's right here. Unless of course you are implying that "birthers" are bigots. Which is equally predictable. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "hateful" or... I don't know... clarify what you mean by "birthers".

You seem to have us all pegged so well.

Birther: One that questions Obama's birthplace.

Hateful: www.thefreedictionary.com...


Anymore remidial information you need me to help you with?

reply to post by Ahabstar


First-hand accounts are unreliable. It's proven science that they aren't the end-all-be-all as far as "proof" goes.
If that were the case, every alien abduction, bigfoot sighting, and Urban Legend would be "true".
It's NOT good enough for me.

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

As hard as you were to Ron Paul for those racist newsletters,your going to give Obama a pass ?


Priceless.

Obama HAD to know,what was being said about him.

Hes just as culpable,if he let the lie,go. Dishonesty is Obama's REAL name.

I love that you think they are the same thing...how cute.


You do know this bio is written in the third person...right?

And you do know Ron Paul's newsletter were written in first person and credited to him....right?


And who has come forward saying that they wrote the Ron Paul newsletters instead of him??? Oh right...no one.

But the author of this bio has come forward.


Nice try though...but horrible logic.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

It's right here. Unless of course you are implying that "birthers" are bigots. Which is equally predictable. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "hateful" or... I don't know... clarify what you mean by "birthers".

You seem to have us all pegged so well.

Birther: One that questions Obama's birthplace.

Hateful: www.thefreedictionary.com...


Anymore remidial information you need me to help you with?

Deflection is not an adequate response. You seem to have a rather convenient habit of selective reading/quoting.

reply to post by MuchTooSerious


Exactly my point. I just chose old Bill Jeff because he was the first thing that popped in my head.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Hmmmm.

I remember a few people saying Ron Paul needed to come clean,and was ultimately responsible about some racist newsletters.....


How the shoe doesn't fit,when it comes to Obama,hey?

I would actually call those who said that hypocrites

And I would say apples and oranges.

A bio written in the third person vs a newsletter written in first person under someones name.

Yes...those are EXACTLY the same

Wrong.

Obama KNEW about the lie. He let the LIE continue .

Do you really think he DIDNT see this,before it was published?
Do you believe his publisher didnt give him a COPY of it?

Come on.


May I quote exactly what you said about Ron Paul ?

It will show exactly how biased you are .


Ron Paul said he didnt write what YOU claimed he should be held accountable for.

Obama said he didn't know about this,and YOU claim its a misunderstanding.

Cant you see the hypocrisy ? I can.

Originally posted by Ahabstar

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

We have first hand testimony...that is good enough for the courts...it is good enough for me.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman." -- Bill Clinton

So much for a "first-hand account" as indisputable facts. People can say anything, doesn't make it fact.

Then if you are calling the author of this bio a liar...I would have to ask for proof of that.

Until then...we take her at her word.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

As hard as you were to Ron Paul for those racist newsletters,your going to give Obama a pass ?


Priceless.

Obama HAD to know,what was being said about him.

Hes just as culpable,if he let the lie,go. Dishonesty is Obama's REAL name.

I love that you think they are the same thing...how cute.


You do know this bio is written in the third person...right?

And you do know Ron Paul's newsletter were written in first person and credited to him....right?


And who has come forward saying that they wrote the Ron Paul newsletters instead of him??? Oh right...no one.

But the author of this bio has come forward.


Nice try though...but horrible logic.

Just so you can see the crack in your own logic (perhaps):

"Miriam Goderich edited the text of the bio; she is now a partner at the Dystel & Goderich agency, which lists Obama as one of its current clients.

"This was nothing more than a fact checking error by me--an agency assistant at the time," Goderich wrote in an emailed statement to Yahoo News. "There was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii. I hope you can communicate to your readers that this was a simple mistake and nothing more.""

reply to post by Ahabstar


Obama killed Osama!

Second.

Mere word taken as fact

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You keep saying the author of the bio admitted they made a mistake as if that automatically means case closed! Obviously she could've been contacted by certain people before she made a statement, she could be lying, etc.

I've yet to get a simple explanation of why the mistake was made in the first place. Whoever wrote it was able to get information that he was raised in Indonesia and Hawaii, but somehow goofed on the birthplace? Something doesn't add up and if you don't see that then I can't see how you can consider yourself unbiased and looking at this objectively. It's really strange for a sitting president's birthplace to be under such scrutiny for all this time and you can't simply blame it all on racism, right wing etc...Not to mention, so much else in his past is mysterious and shady.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Deflection is not an adequate response. You seem to have a rather convenient habit of selective reading/quoting.

You asked for definitions...I gave you definitions...if you want something else...then be more clear.


I see that you never responded to my post giving you the information you asked for about the author of the bio...maybe you just missed that post