Google Books List Bill Ayers as Author of Obama’s “Dreams from My Father”

Google Books lists Bill Ayers as author of Dreams from My Father

Thomas Lifson

google_ad_client = “pub-4560167926987914″; google_ad_width = 300; google_ad_height = 250; google_ad_format = “300x250_as”; google_ad_type = “text_image”; //2006-11-22: AT – Articles – 300 by 250 google_ad_channel = “0110545599″; google_color_border = “336699″; google_color_bg = “FFFFFF”; google_color_link = “999966″; google_color_text = “000000″; google_color_url = “003399″; //–>

Google, which sits atop more data than anybody outside the NSA, is presenting Bill Ayers as the author of Barack Obama’s purported first autobiography, Dreams from My Father. Follow this link and see it while you can. If it is gone by the time you read this, a screen shot of the page, and a close-up on the Dreams entry are provided for posterity.

Google knows so much about us already that privacy activists are alarmed. What data are its algorithms sifting through to come to the conclusion that yes, the stylistic parallels to Ayers’ other books are formidable and Barry never showed any sign of an ability to write this way before or after, and yes, Christopher Anderson’s friendly biography includes the information that Obama found himself deeply in debt and “hopelessly blocked.” At “Michelle’s urging,” Obama “sought advice from his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers.”

So the company that supposedly knows more about us than we know ourselves also knows who wrote Dreams from My Father.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/google_books_lists_bill_ayers_as_author_of_dreams_from_my_father.html

“JustiaGate”: Justia.com, Obama’s Birth Certficate, and “Natural Born Citizen”

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?

On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn’t born in the country to parents who were citizens.  According to the decision in Happersett:

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/justiagate_natural_born_supreme_court_citations_disappear.html#ixzz1gYLSERUz

American Thinker: If Hawaii Went “Paperless” in 2001, Why are There Inconsistencies in the Document They Provided Obama?

from American Thinker:

      The following is from an email sent from CNN’s Lou Dobb’s Show:

*In 2001 – the state of Hawaii Health Department went paperless.*Paper documents were discarded*The official record of Obama’s birth is now an official ELECTRONIC record Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Health Department told the Honolulu Star Bulletin, “At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.

 

So, is the pdf document released by the White House a copy that was scanned into the Hawaii DOH files? If so, why, then, are there anomalies? (See this, this, this, and this, for instance.)

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/2009_report_hawaii_health_depa.html

Obama Birth Certificate: Trust (?) But Verify !!

     It was predictable that there would be immediate reaction to debunk the validity of the purported birth certificate that Barack Hussein Obama II released in response to the rising poll numbers indicating that more Americans, across the political spectrum, were questioning his eligibility. Here are a few that are worth reviewing:

I Can Emphatically Tell You That The Document Posted On White House.gov Has Been Either Pasted Together, Or For Some Reason, Taken Apart

Home – by BigFurHat – April 27, 2011 – 19:24 America/New_York – 110 Comments

People have been asking me to weigh in on the veracity of the newly released white house COLB because they know that in “real life” I’m a graphic designer.

I can emphatically tell you that this document is not merely a scan of a document that has been uploaded to the internet. This is a document that has been either put together or taken apart prior to the upload, and even Charles Johnson would have to admit that.

After downloading the document that Whitehouse.gov made available to the public I opened the file in illustrator and the file is indeed in layers, which cannot happen unless the document was edited.

For the full synopsis and analysis: http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=73096

From American Thinker:

Yesterday, President Obama released a long form birth certificate.  In doing so, he lectured Americans about what was truly important in America.  “We do not have time for this kind of silliness,” he intoned.  “We’ve got better stuff to do.  I’ve got better stuff to do.  We’ve got big problems to solve, and I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them, not on this.”  He then promptly boarded Air Force One to solve one of those vital problems — by flying to Chicago for another appearance on Oprah’s show.

Let’s focus now on one very simple question: why did he fight not to release the long form birth certificate?

Why did it take the moving of mountains (or at least poll numbers) to get Obama to release a long form birth certificate after literally years of stonewalling?  Although there is incriminating evidence on the long form birth certificate — in that the numbers are still out of sequence with the Nordyke twins’ numbers — we already knew that from Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB).  In fact, were it not for the certificate numbers and the date accepted by the Registrar General on the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates, and the certificate number and the date filed by the registrar on Obama’s COLB, this indication of forgery would never have been detected.

Obama’s Race War

Wasn’t the issue of race supposed to disappear with the election of Barack Obama? Instead, Obama and the Left are playing the race card at every possible situation……………….. classic Alinsky!!

“The president is working a crude insider reparations program in administration policy and law-making — for example, in the health care bill, or even administrative matters like the GM dealership closings, race and preferences have been in play. Obama is serious about redistribution by racial favors and quotas, and the legislation supported by his administration always provides preference and sets aside boilerplate that plays to the set asides and preferences bias. Obama and his administration are not post-racial at all. 

Now America is gasping for air with the Obama socialist boot on its neck. Tea Party people have to push ahead and must not be hesitant or afraid. They must stop murmuring about being nice and avoiding being called racists and pull the frightened Republican poobahs along.”

 

“The Marxists/socialists would be happy if they could spit racist into the hole when they throw the last spadeful of dirt on the Tea Party and conservative remains.”

 

“This is the last quarter of the contest — the last chance to fight back!”    

 http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/race_war_acomin_1.html

The Anatomy of a Failing Presidency

From the INBOX of today’s email:

An article attributed to a “Dr. Hunt”, whoever that may be, said to be a writer for American Thinker and to work at the NIH.  No matter, the content is brilliant and spot-on.  The quotations added at the end add to complement the article.

 

Anatomy of a Failing Presidency

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson. In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.
But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.
But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What’s going on?
No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us. He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, and Reagan.
But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, and is historically illiterate and woefully small minded for the size of the task–all contributory of course. It’s that he’s not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.
In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”
Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.
Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.
Margaret Thatcher: “The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
“When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both.” – James Dale Davidson, National Taxpayers Union
“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” – Tacitus
“A Liberal is a person who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” – Unknown

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

A Stranger In Our Midst

A Stranger in Our Midst

 

By Robert Weissberg

 

As the Obama administration enters its second year, I — and undoubtedly millions of others — have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term “being opposed” lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like “worried” or “anxious” apply. I was more worried about America’s future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it’s not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.

 

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama’s birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.

 

The term I settled on is “alien rule” — based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits — that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders’ efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.

 

This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama’s odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright’s anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background — an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.

 

None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn’t fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the “outsider?” quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush’s privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.

 

The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn’t “get” America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What “native” would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a “green jobs czar”? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama’s weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from “racist” Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, “Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault,” and the day would have been saved.

 

And then there’s the “we are sorry, we’ll never be arrogant again” rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama’s Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn’t notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there’s Obama’s bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don’t bow.

 

But far worse is Obama’s tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.

 

Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy — it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation.

 

Perhaps the clearest evidence for this “foreigner in our midst” mentality is the name given our resistance — tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as “the shot heard around the world” and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: “HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance.” What’s next?

 

 

Published in American Thinker, April 29, 2010

 

Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana. 

“No Sire, It is A Revolution”

     She called them “Astro Turf” and Nazi’s”. The President refers to them with the derogatory sexual remark that a college photo of his personal assistant illustrates. The left media dismisses them as divisive, racists, right wingers. But the truth of the matter is that the Tea Party individuals are simply Average Americans. And they are a voice that the politicians must hear, or accept their peril.

      From American Thinker:

It’s a painful thing to imagine Robert Bennett over the past few days, sitting alone in a darkened room, staring off into space wondering what hit him and whistling Nick Cave’s “There She Goes My Beautiful World” over and over again.
It happened quickly. Events in politics aren’t supposed to happen that quickly. It came out of nowhere, with next to no warning at all. Even a few weeks ago, there was little sign that Bennett was in trouble. Then the spirit of 2010 suddenly rose out the darkness and took him down.

It also wrong-footed the chattering classes, most of whom have echoed that master of analysis David Brooks in sputtering, “It’s an outrage.” From a certain point of view, perhaps so. But outrages don’t occur for no reason. After Bennett, three things can be said with certainty:

That the Tea Party movement is in no way a partisan phenomenon.

That it is not a minor event, one of those weird little upheavals common to democracies such as the Perotista uproar of the 90s, which appeared, wreaked havoc, and then vanished leaving no measurable effect on national politics.

That it is not simply a revolt. As the Duc de la Rochefoucauld explained to Louis XVI one fine July morning: “No sire, it is a revolution.”

For the full article:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/will_the_gop_wake_up_and_smell.html

Robin From Berkeley: Snake in her House, & the People’s House Too

from American Thinker:

One brutally cold winter, a snake knocked on the door of a house occupied by a little mouse. The mouse yelled out, “Who is it?” and the snake answered, “It’s me, the snake. Can I come in? It’s freezing out here.”  

 

The mouse asserted, “No you can’t come in. Snakes eat mice. If I let you in, you’ll eat me.”

 

The snake insisted, “I promise that I won’t eat you. I’m just cold and want to come in for the night.”

The two went back and forth many times before the mouse finally relented. The snake came into the house and immediately ate the mouse.

 

The moral of the story: You can’t change a being’s essential nature. So be very, very careful before you let someone into your house or into your heart.

 

Because there are bad people who wish us harm, Americans need to be careful and attentive. Of course, these politically correct times have crippled too many citizens in Self Protection 101.

 

Wasn’t it obvious that Obama presented a clear and present danger? The creepy friends, the thug-like atmosphere, the blank history. All people had to do was take off the rose-colored glasses.

 

But voters chose the Hollywood fantasy of some illusory hope and change. And now it appears that we have a chameleon, a wolf, and, yes, a snake living in the White House.

The wicked go astray from the womb;

they err from their birth, speaking lies.

They have venom like the venom of a serpent,

like the deaf adder that stops its ear,

so that it does not hear the voice of the charmers

or of the cunning enchanter.

Psalm 58

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.

ObamaCare Exempts Amish from Mandates, and Muslims May Receive Similar Treatment

from American Thinker:

So while most Americans would be required to sign up with insurance companies or government insurance plans, the church would serve as something of an informal insurance plan for the Amish.

Law experts say that kind of exemption withstands scrutiny.

“Here the statute is going to say that people who are conscientiously opposed to paying for health insurance don’t have to do it where the conscientious objection arises from religion,” said Mark Tushnet a Harvard law professor. “And that’s perfectly constitutional.”

Apparently, this exemption will apply similarly to believers in Islam, which considers health insurance – and, for that matter, any form of risk insurance – to be haraam (forbidden).

According to a March 23 publication on an authoritative Islamic Web site managed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, various fatwas (religious decrees) absolutely forbid Muslim participation in any sort of health care or other risk insurance:

Health insurance is haraam like other types of commercial insurance, because it is based on ambiguity, gambling and riba (usury). This is what is stated in fatwas by the senior scholars.

In Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/277) there is a quotation of a statement of the Council of Senior Scholars concerning the prohibition on insurance and why it is haraam: 

It says in Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (15/251): 

Firstly: Commercial insurance of all types is haraam because it involves ambiguity, riba, uncertainty, gambling and consuming people’s wealth unlawfully, and other shar’i

Secondly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to get involved with insurance companies by working in administration or otherwise, because working in them comes under the heading of cooperating in sin and transgression, and Allaah forbids that as He says: “but do not help one another in sin and transgression. And fear Allaah. Verily, Allaah is Severe in punishment”

[al-Maa'idah 5:2]. End quote

for the rest of the article: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/amish_muslims_to_be_excused_fr.html