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

Originally posted by Resurected
This was alread debunked.

"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."


abcnews.go.com...


Not that this will stop a few people here

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

Yes. clearly debunked

Try reading the thread in the future.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher


Come on...I know you can do it...this is like 3rd grade grammar...please point out the difference in those two meanings.

Anyone can write something about someone else without their permission...but you can't write something FOR someone else without their permission.

Yawn.

This Agent was paid to write a bio about him. A FACTUAL Bio. I know if I pay for something,especially something that has my name,attached to many high profiled people,it better be damn ACCURATE. I cant believe you can give her and Obama a pass,when you were so hard on Ron Paul,for stating the same thing. Obama and Ron Paul,said they didn't know,but its ONLY alright,when its Obama.

BTW, only a third grader would continue to deny something,they know is wrong......

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Ummm...yes...it would hold up in court.

Having someone as a client doesn't mean you can't testify to your own work.

I love when we play pretend lawyers on ATS...it's so much fun.


If you think she is lying...prove it.

no one needs to "prove" she is lying... and how would we outside of either being there or an admission of guilt. We can infer from what evidence we are shown and need not take her statement as gospel. She has a reason to lie. There is such a thing as motive. And I don't think a court would consider her testimony credible considering their working relationship. She benfits from his being born in the U.S.. THAT is enough for me.

Now, on to another point...
I don't see the need for the snarky comments on your part.
Snide remarks don't bolster your position nor do they put you in the best light.
Resorting to sarcastic, snide, belittling comments is oftentimes the sign of a weak argument or a someone not confident in their position and, instead, falls back on personal attacks.
If you want to debate, let's debate. If you want to act like a schoolyard bully then I ask you to leave me out of it... I'm an adult.

Originally posted by sonnny1
Personally,if he wanted this to go away,he would allow ALL his records,to be scrutinized.

No, it wouldnt go away even then.

remember when people wanted to see his Birth certificate, after he showed that they then wanted to see his long form birth certificate, and even after he showed that some people claimed it was forged - based on nothing at all..

The whole birther thing is not about any bit of paper or record Obama shows - it is about a black man being the legal POTUS.

We even have people here demanding that he is lynched.

Whats he hiding ?

Exactly the same as every previous President - how many of them have released as many records as Obama? None at all...

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

It didn't exist when Obama Sr. was born either but he is considered Kenyan.

His father became a Kenyan citizen when it became a nation.

Why are Russians considered Russians if they were born under the USSR???


This is getting kind of silly...don't you think?

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Sorry, no way i am going through 34 pages of neo and beezzer...

Not to mention this whole birther thing debunked time and time again for 4 years now.. Its a dead horse, care to beat it awhile?

reply to post by DeadSeraph

She works for a company that lists him as a client... If you honestly think that wouldn't be exposed as a conflict of interest in court by a competent attorney, than you are more deluded than I thought.

So let's just say someone brings this as part of their "evidence" in a court case against Obama.

Are you telling me the court is going to deny the testimony of the AUTHOR of the bio???



Lawyer make believe is my favorite time on ATS.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Screwed
At this point one thing is abundantly clear.

Obama his own damn self could come out and declare in front of God and the whole rest of the world that he was indeed born in Kenya and there would still be no shortage of people who would argue with the first sorry SOB to post a thread about it.

Actually the point that is abunduntantly clear is birthers hate the fact that Obama is the legal POTUS, and will try and show with any scrap of irrelevant info that he isnt, whilst ignoring all the facts that prove that he is.

They will even make stuff up, or find lies and post them here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your characterization of the people who are in doubt regarding the President's place of birth says more about you than it does them (or , rather, us.).
I'm not going to bother getting into the intricacies of the issue, but if that is your only contribution to the discussion then I feel sorry for you.
That is you opinion, and you are entitled to it.
But, factually speaking, you're wrong.

Originally posted by Resurected
This was alread debunked.

"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."


abcnews.go.com...


Not that this will stop a few people here

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

No...it has not stopped them....just more and more ridiculous excuses.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Funny, they go by what the author says when its on brietbart... Then when the author comes out to clarify the issue they dont want to hear it.. Most of the time i would say that is because they have a motive or an issue themselves and they simply looking for stones to throw. Doesnt matter if its good or bad, true or false, its all in the agenda they want to support.

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Sorry, no way i am going through 34 pages of neo and beezzer...

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

To summarize:

The person you quoted refused to answer questions from Breitbart news, but submitted her admission that it was a clerical error (a 20 year old clerical error I might add) to ABC news, while ABC news admitted in said article that she works for a company who lists Barack Obama as one of it's clients.

I pointed out this would be considered a conflict of interest and wouldn't hold a candle in court. I hope you have the sense to see this as well.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Maybe they dont like brietbart and find it to be a trollish site and not a news source like most other people in America?

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Sorry, no way i am going through 34 pages of neo and beezzer...

But we wrote it just for you.

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Seems he has put forward more then previous presidents... But let me take a note from you last night, name one president you ever expected to release everything before Obama?

hmmmmm....

LINK

Many Presidents have released records.........

reply to post by beezzer


Dont get off topic, you might get reported and moded...

Originally posted by sonnny1
Only if you show me proof Ron Paul knew about those racist news letters,prior to them going out.

This has already been demonstrated. First of all, those articles were written with Paul's name as the author. Second of all, during the period those racist articles were being written (1988-1996), Lew Rockwell, the publisher of those articles, participated in both Paul'ss 1988 presidential campaign and 1992 exploratory committee:
findarticles.com...

So we know these newsletter had Paul's name as the author, and we also knew that Rockwell, the publisher, was working closely with Paul during the period he was publishing those articles.

There is also this little gem(s) here:

In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

– Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

– Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

– “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

www.criticalreactor.com...
www.chron.com...

Paul is a coward, I thought I'd let you know. But to further on this point, you can't insist this literary booklet of Obama to be automatic truth, especially since it (1) wasn't written by Obama and (2) the author took responsibility and admitted to the mistake in the biography. You can't also apply different standards to Ron Paul's newsletters when (1) Ron Paul did indeed write articles for Lew Rockwell, they had him as the author of his articles and most importantly, (2) Lew Rockwell worked closely with Ron Paul.

If you're trying to make Ron Paul innocent in one case and Obama guilty in the other, you are being a hypocrite.

Obama is accountable for his Bio,regardless if he has a publisher or not.

Obama OWNS it.

No he doesn't. If somebody writes something about you, and they make an error about something in your life, and they admit to that mistake, then you don't own it. You can't be held accountable for the accuracy over everything written about you, ask celebrities, this is reality. As for Ron Paul, maybe if you really cared about facts, not partisanship, you'd find that Paul's case is clearly different.

reply to post by sonnny1


You said full disclosure.. When have YOU ever expected such from another sitting president?

And for the link you put out, lets talk about Bush since they mentioned him.. Seems they had a ton of unanswered questions about Bush and the military.. Did we get real answers?

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by DeadSeraph

 

Maybe they dont like brietbart and find it to be a trollish site and not a news source like most other people in America?

Perhaps. Still a conflict of interest

A somewhat difficult clerical error to make as well, but I can see I'm making no headway here, and I'm Canadian and likely have no business in this thread anyways. Best of luck

Originally posted by mwood
I believe it should be investigated and if proved he was not eligible he should be charged with treason, espionage and prosecute to the full extent of the law. Find him a nice room at GITMO.

Too bad that won't work since he said he would close gitmo.......wait, he didn't do that along with a plethora of other vows to the voters? Looks like the plan it back on!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Ok. So I guess going by your logic...If it comes to light that a reputable source has 11 years prior written something of this magnitude about a sitting president, as long as that source simply now makes a statement that they made a mistake about it then that's the end of it and we shouldn't haven't any curiosity about why the mistake was made, if in fact it was a mistake, if it was based on faulty information given, etc..?

This is extremely significant and demands an explanation by someone. The bio's authors' acknowledging the supposed mistake and calling it a 'fact checking error' is a pitiful response and insulting to our intelligence and natural, warranted curiosity for such an huge mistake regarding our president.