Take action now: Take the Stop Amnesty Challenge.

It's up to you to block Obama's amnesty.
 

Obama campaign creatively edits Jerome Corsi quote; his supposed "widely discredited beliefs"; calls him "Truther"

The Barack Obama campaign is promulgating to their followers and others a PDF about Jerome Corsi's latest book "Obama Nation"; you can download it here: my.barackobama.com/page/invite/corsi

Some of their debunking in parts of it may be accurate or not, etc. However, in one section they've "creatively edited" Corsi. From the section called "CONSIDER THE SOURCE: CORSI HOLDS WIDELY DISCREDITED BELIEFS":

CORSI IS A 9/11 TRUTH BELIEVER - THAT AIRPLANES WERE NOT TRULY TO BLAME FOR DESTRUCTION OF WORLD TRADE TOWERS
Corsi is a 9/11 Truther. In a radio interview, Corsi said, "I'm gonna come out with a story, I think is gonna be earth-shaking, and that is from Steven Jones, the physicist from BYU who's been dismissed. Well, he's now gotten samples of the World Trade Center dust, and he's demonstrated the dust has formed these spheres, these iron spheres, that can only be formed under extremely high temperatures. And I know enough about the science to know he's right. The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he's produced. so when you've got science that the hypothesis doesn't explain--evidence--then the hypothesis doesn't stand anymore. It just means the government's explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres--these microcopic spheres--that Steven Jones has proved existed within the WTC dust...In attacking these things, first scientifically...for me, what tips the scales is when you've got science that the conventional hypothesis doesn't explain." [Alex Jones show, 1/29/08]

Oddly enough, the BHO campaign left out part of that quote without providing ellipses. In fact, they left out a whole sentence. Here's the relevant part, with the omitted sentence in bold (source: NYT):

So when you've got science that the hypothesis doesn't explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn't stand anymore. It doesn't mean there's a new hypothesis you've validated. It just means the government's explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation...

With that sentence, his statements take on a more balanced tone; he appears to be calling for real press coverage instead of simply accepting everything the government has said at face value. While some MSM sources have been in the former camp, most have been in the latter. In the NYT's words, "he was planning [on] exposing what he calls the government's inadequate explanations about the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center". There's a huge difference between the wild-eyed truthers who claim for a fact that Bush/Cheney/etc. knew about or planned the attacks and those who rightly question some government explanations that don't add up.

Another entry in that section concerns the North American Union; see the post about Kenneth Vogel for an answer to that. Their entry also quotes Hawkins. They also discuss the NAFTA Superhighway. Apparently their followers are expected to think both are myths and they correctly assume that most of their followers won't know that Obama has come out for Bush's SPP.gov and appears to have confirmed the NAFTA Superhighway.

Other tags: obama misleads

Politics · Thu, 08/14/2008 - 19:13 · Importance: 19

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 04:53
Roger Strong

No, it's the author of this blog who's being dishonest. Yes, there's a real but dubious plan for a 10-lane megahighway in Texas - the Trans-Texas Corridor. It's in Texas only. Yes, there are real plans for trade corridors from Mexico to Canada - NASCO and CANAMEX. These involve harmonized truck length and load regulations on ***EXISTING*** highways. They involve NO 10-lane megahighways - or ANY new highways. No eminent domain land seizures. No "North American Union". No illumintti shadow government. This is what Obama was in favor of. But the combination of the two - the hyper-stupid "10-lane megahighway from Mexico to Winnipeg" claim, is only in the heads of the tinfoil-hat crowd. It's the same story with the SPP, which involves harmonized regulations and plans on how to cooperate in the case of a virus outbreak or terrorist attack that crosses borders - problems we've already experienced. (What scares you more from a sovereignty point of view: An agreement worked out ahead of time with due consideration, or an agreement worked out in a rush in the middle of a crisis?) It's not an EU-style political or monetary union, not a "North American Union". I've yet to see anyone in the SPP crowd come up with any evidence that anyone in power in the US or Canada is planning any NAU. No, accusations and theories are not evidence. Nor are links to other people's accusations and theories - even when in video with creepy music. Nor are wishful reports by private lobbyists.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 15:19
CKA in Red State USA

The Demockacrat Party's presumptuous candidate's campaign misquoting one of said candidate's critics? Shocking, appalling! What's next: PC taking a world tour, acting if he's already been elected? Or creating his own faux presidential seal? Oh, wait: He's already done that.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 16:08
petty bourgeois

"I've yet to see anyone in the SPP crowd come up with any evidence that anyone in power in the US or Canada is planning any NAU." You must be blind, ignorant, or stupid, or all of the aforementioned. You also forgot Mexico is in on the plan, since they have the most to benefit from such a regulatory scheme.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 18:54
Roger Strong

It wouldn't surprise me if an official in Mexico made wishful statements in favor of an NAU - because as you say, Mexico has the most to benefit from it. But it's the involvement of the countries with less to gain, that counts. I could publicly promote a plan where you give me all your money, and obviously I'd support such a plan. But it's your decision that counts. If all this NAU evidence exists, there where is it? Why do the NAU theorists at best only wave about "Towards a North American Community" - ignoring the facts that a) it came from private lobbyists, not any government source, b) YOU TOO can produce a similar or opposite leaning document, c) there ARE other lobbyists with equal or better stature who want the opposite, isolationism and protectionism, and most importantly d) since the document was produced, Canada and the US have done the ***exact opposite*** of what it calls for, rejecting the "common security perimeter" and putting passport requirements and other blockages between the two countries for the first time EVER? C'mon, where's all the evidence for the NAU? Don't just cop out and say "you haven't looked". Give us a link.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 20:54
petty bourgeois

http://www.spp.gov/prosperity_agenda/index.asp?dName=prosperity_agenda Why would anyone want to consolidate wealth and power into the hands of a few? No one has ever tried that before, right? The EU is just a figment of your imagination, right? Are you saying the corporations have Americans' best interests at heart when cooking up this scheme? You statements are laughable, at best. As I stated above, I think you are blind, ignorant and stupid. The denial that such a scheme exists does not make it so.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 20:55
petty bourgeois

Furthermore, when things are being conducted behind closed doors, its pretty obvious someone is up to no good, otherwise there would be some transparency.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 20:56
petty bourgeois

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, comrade.

Fri, 08/15/2008 - 23:44
Anonymous

First, Roger strikes me as far from the worst but he did break out the tired 'tin foil hat' card. What is the issue exactly? The serious critics of SPP, NACC, etc. admit that they don't have access to information and thus speculate on what such groups MIGHT want to do. There's a PRECEDENT for continental community/union and powerful people make no secret of their desire for it. You sound like these people have no influence. Roger writes: 'It's the same story with the SPP, which involves harmonized regulations and plans on how to cooperate in the case of a virus outbreak or terrorist attack that crosses borders...' The name-calling, ridicule 'crowd' PRESUMES to know the full extent of what they don't have access to. THAT'S irrational. It's also striking how people who in other contexts don't trust power and are skeptical of business influence are suddenly so trusting in these areas even with such a lack of transparency. Why the preoccupation with mocking people who merely want to shine a light?

Sat, 08/16/2008 - 00:20
Unbeliever

Roger, you need to talk to some of the Mayors and Senators in Texas. That's if you don't want to go to any of the townhall meetings that have been held due to the fact that eminent domain is being used to take the land for the roadways.

Sat, 08/16/2008 - 05:04
Roger Strong

>> SPP.gov link And....? That shows a trade-related plan, just like I've been saying. Economic integration, but not any EU-style political or even monetary union. No NAU. >> The EU is just a figment of your imagination Nice straw-man argument. In any case, North Americas isn't Europe. The EU has several major powers, and plenty of smaller ones that could team up. No one country can dominate the rest. North America on the other hand would be totally dominated by the US population and economy. So for Canada to join, it would require equal say in things like legal and monetary policy. This in turn would be unfair to Americans. It won't happen. Nor have we had the cycle of major war after major war that the EU was created to end. Not just WWII, WWI and the Napoleonic wars, but "little" ones like Thirty Years War - a third of the population of Germany wiped out. >> Are you saying the corporations have Americans' best interests at heart when cooking up this scheme? Not at all. That's why I oppose free trade with any country with much lower wages and working conditions than Canada and the US. That sucking sound of jobs heading south is real. (And it started long before NAFTA. Remember "Roger WorldNetDaily is today's Weekly World News. They're in it to make money off the tinfoil-hat crowd by selling books, lectures and advertising, just like in the UFO days. They need a constant stream of new conspiracy angles, and to hell with the truth. >> he did break out the tired 'tin foil hat' card Yes, and with good reason. There's a distinction between a "conspiracy theory" and a "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory". Calling something a theory implies that it's backed up by evidence, or even a credible line of reasoning. It implies that it's testable - even if your test doesn't absolutely prove or disprove your theory. When a claim isn't backed by evidence or reasoning, and when the person making the claim casually dismisses the opposing evidence, it's a "tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory". I've yet to see evidence - let alone a credible line of reasoning - for why Canada would join an EU-style union with the US. There's a mountain of evidence and reasons why it wouldn't: See above about the EU. See the increasing tendency, from durham wheat to softwood lumber to high tech for the US to refuse to ho

Sat, 08/16/2008 - 05:08
Roger Strong

{continued] I've yet to see evidence - let alone a credible line of reasoning - for why Canada would join an EU-style union with the US. There's a mountain of evidence and reasons why it wouldn't: See above about the EU. See the increasing tendency, from durham wheat to softwood lumber to high tech for the US to refuse to honor NAFTA. See the free trade agreements Canada has signed with six other countries just so far this year alone to make it less reliant on trade with the US. See Canada's refusal to take part in the "Common Security Perimeter". See Canada's overall lack of protest when the US put passport requirements and other obstacles on the border for the first time EVER. See the Bank of Canada's reasoning for refusing to peg the Canadian dollar to the American dollar, as it was in the 1960s. (It was fixed at around 91 cents US, to help Canadian exports.) You can *partially* explain a lack of evidence with lame excuses like "behind closed doors" and "lack of transparency". But when you can't come up with even valid reasoning for the claim, it can't be taken seriously. This applies to wild leaps of logic too. It's a credible claim that "The CFR wants the NAU". But claims that "The CFR will *GET* the NAU", or "The government wants the NAU" do not automatically follow. We've been waiting a long time for evidence. >> you need to talk to some of the Mayors and Senators in Texas Again, I don't deny the TTC. But NASCO is NOT the TTC, nor does it involve eminent domain land seizures.

Sat, 08/16/2008 - 11:57
Anonymous

Rog, you make a good point about Canada. It's really a U.S.-Mexico thing. Some of the most articulate opposition comes from the Canadian left. Why is it in the U.S. skeptics are assumed to be right wing and hostilely dismissed as kooks? I'm not sure if overall the fringe voices are good for drawing attention to the issues or if they allow the broader group of critics to be discredited by the apologists. I suspect it's the former and apparently so do the NAU true believers who say their cause has been damaged. '"The CFR will *GET* the NAU" You don't have to formally 'get' an NAU to have opposition policies to your country's sovereignty which over time will create a de facto union on the ground. If x % of Mexico already lives in the U.S. at some point it makes no real difference. See Lonewacko's post: http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007905.html The fact that few citizens of the countries would support a formal NAU means the way to move in that direction is incrementally and anti-democratically (outside the people's power through their legislative representatives). 'Economic integration, but not any EU-style political' 'Economic integration' has inherently political implications. SPP/NACC-type entities are outside the Constitution government directly by corporation, not just influence of the established government (which is bad enough). This is a big step in the wrong (anti-democratic) direction. Power for these entities comes directly at the expense of political power for citizens who are pro-sovereignty, pro-nation state as opposed to seeing those as hindrances. Thus, the more influence or direct power they wield will trend toward less national sovereignty. EU isn't the main issue, just a potential manifestation. If a de jure NAU is never achieved but your power as a citizen is usurped, your country's sovereignty dissipated to nothing, your citizenship made irrelevant (some of the CFR boys say it already is and obviously wish for that), does it even make much difference?

Sun, 08/17/2008 - 15:04
Fred Dawes
www.myspace.com/FredDawes1776/

Poor Roger Strong he is just one more little fool for mexico city, Roger is your best friend in the world, and may God Buy Guns! he will need one soon to stop Roger from his duty to the NAU. check out the NAU Deal with 100,000 new workers coming here for the fun and games, and 10 million new gang guys all looking for you. read Frosty Wooldridge he has part of the facts right but no all. And May God help you all, buy Guns really Big Guns!

Tue, 08/19/2008 - 15:21
petty bourgeois

Calling people crazy (e.g. "tin foil hats") is right out of the playbook of the most fringe marxist academics, who were equally intellectually dishonest as Roger. Remember the days when "fascism" was considered a mental pathology by the left? Roger arguments are no different than 50 years ago. Such use ad hominem means you have lost the argument, so give it a rest. And the semantic games are also there, just like a good leftist. "Economic integration" is a step towards the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of a few. Nice to see you are one of their handmaidens. I don't cite WND so your fallacious UFO comparison does not hold water with me. I don't want economic integration, so why it is being acommplished through administrative regulation without the consent of the people? This is just like the EU, and just because there is no currency established yet does not mean it will not happen in the future. Your rank speculation and conjecture further points to just how intellectually dishonest you really are.

Tue, 08/19/2008 - 15:21
petty bourgeois

Calling people crazy (e.g. "tin foil hats") is right out of the playbook of the most fringe marxist academics, who were equally intellectually dishonest as Roger. Remember the days when "fascism" was considered a mental pathology by the left? Roger arguments are no different than 50 years ago. Such use ad hominem means you have lost the argument, so give it a rest. And the semantic games are also there, just like a good leftist. "Economic integration" is a step towards the consolidation of wealth and power into the hands of a few. Nice to see you are one of their handmaidens. I don't cite WND so your fallacious UFO comparison does not hold water with me. I don't want economic integration, so why it is being acommplished through administrative regulation without the consent of the people? This is just like the EU, and just because there is no currency established yet does not mean it will not happen in the future. Your rank speculation and conjecture further points to just how intellectually dishonest you really are.

Tue, 08/19/2008 - 15:36
petty bourgeois

Damn Haloscan is on the fritz. It an inferior product of an EU country.

Wed, 08/20/2008 - 05:27
Roger Strong

(Sorry for the delay responding. I'm just wrapping up moving to a new house and getting the other one sold.) >> Some of the most articulate opposition >> comes from the Canadian left. Not just the left. The left mere engages in a lot more hyperbole over it - but then free trade tends to benefit the corporations more than the citizens. But opposition comes from all sides. The government of Prime Minister Mulroney was seen as being too close to the Americans, after he brought in the Canada-US free trade deal and then NAFTA. Canadians didn't just vote the Progressive Conservatives (our Republican Party) out of office - they voted it out of existence. (A fringe right-wing party took its place and went main-stream. They're running Canada now.) The other parties have not forgotten this. Which is why Canada rejected the "Common Security Perimeter", rejected taking part in the invasion of Iraq, rejected taking part in the missile defense system, etc. Its why, with the rise of the Canadian dollar relative to the US dollar, we didn't fix it at 91 cents US to help exports like we did in the 1960s. No Canadian party wants to be accused of giving up sovereignty - the accusation is a mainstay of Canadian politics, like being labeled a "liberal" in the US. >> over time will create a de facto union on the ground. >>'Economic integration' has inherently >> political implications. If our economies are too dependent on each other's. This has been Canada's problem since long before NAFTA or talk of any NAU. We're an export-based economy, which isn't a bad thing. But those exports were almost all to one country (the US). That IS a bad thing - too much trade with just one country makes you dependent on that country's policies. Which is why, since Canada-US free trade deal, we've signed free trade deals with Mexico, Israel, Chile, Costa Rica, Peru and the European Free Trade Association (Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein). We're negotiating free trade deals with South Korea, Singapore, Jordan, the Dominican Republic, the Andean Community, and the Caribbean Community. These are small countries, but they're adding up. If the US uses trade as an economic club, we have other trading partners. >> If x % of Mexico already lives in the U.S. >> at some point it makes no real difference. Ah, but the illegal immigration problem supports my argument: With the NAU, you set up your factories in Mexico and take advantage of the cheap labor. In Mexico. And sooner or later you have to pay benefits and contend with them unionizing. WITHOUT the NAU, you bring the cheap labor to the US. Since the workers are illegal, you don't have to pay benefits or worry about unions. And the flood of cheap labor lowers the wages of the *legal* workers. Illegal immigration is the *preferred alternative* (for the corporations) to the NAU.

Wed, 08/20/2008 - 05:40
Roger Strong

>> Calling people crazy (e.g. "tin >> foil hats") is right out of the playbook >> of the most fringe marxist academics, It's neither left nor right. Both sides use it. It's a mainstay of the rightwing blogs in the US. I stand by my use of it to describe much of the hand waving about the NAU the mega highways from Mexico to Canada. There's nothing wrong with making accusations, but at some point you need to supply some evidence. If you cop out and claim "but it's done behind closed doors", well, projects that size won't stay secret for long - not when so many people are "onto it" and looking for evidence. Failing that you should at least be able to supply a credible line of reasoning for why a "mega highway to Winnipeg" would be built, or why Canada would join any NAU. If you have neither evidence nor reasoning, then the label fits.

Wed, 08/20/2008 - 15:00
petty bourgeois

Likewise, you have no evidence that it does not exist, so what's your point now? These "discussions" and "dialogue" between government and corporations are being done behind closed doors, and you are not able to deny it because these tangible events are taking place. Why do you think they had to set up a barricade around the event at the last meeting in Canuckistan? Are you also wearing a tin foil hat since you have no evidence to the contrary?

Wed, 08/20/2008 - 22:19
Roger Strong

>> Likewise, you have no evidence that >> it does not exist, so what's your point now? Someone claims that the earth is run by reptilian aliens disguised as humans. A lack of a definitive way to disprove it does not make it true. It's YOUR claim. It's up to YOU to back it with evidence. I HAVE given plenty of evidence to show that Canada would not be part of it. You haven't even attempted to refute it. This is where the tinfoil hat starts to appear over the mental horizon. >> These "discussions" and "dialogue" between >> government and corporations are being >> done behind closed doors That's a cop-out, for the reasons given above. Things that big don't stay secret long. And when the secret is outed - as you claim it is, the evidence almost always turns out to have been there all along. But put it another way: Suppose the US and Mexican Presidents and the Canadian Prime Minister reached a deal and suddenly announced the formation of the NAU. What do you think would happen next? Such an agreement would have no legal standing whatsoever. Without the governments of each country ratifying it, it would be just an idea. In the US, it's likely to be found unconstitutional, and it CERTAINLY wouldn't be ratified regardless. And it it WERE ratified, any judge in the US can override it like they do with NAFTA (blocking Canadian durham wheat and softwood lumber.) In Canada, the opposition parties would hold a non-confidence vote and force an election. And the MPs in the ruling party - having as you claim, been kept in the dark - would support them. It wouldn't even reach the Canadian Senate for a ratification vote. And if it did, constitutional changes like that tend to require direct approval from Canadians via a referendum. THAT would NEVER pass. (We're not the US. We don't give our elected officials absolute power for four years.) You can reach any deal you want behind closed doors. That doesn't make it government policy. Not by a long shot. Believe it or not, you live in a democracy with lots of checks and balances on power. >> Why do you think they had to set up >> a barricade around the event at the >> last meeting in Canuckistan? Gee - you don't think that the riots at previous trade events had anything to do with it? Are you serious?

Wed, 08/20/2008 - 22:35
petty bourgeois

"It's YOUR claim. It's up to YOU to back it with evidence." No, your claim that something does not exist does not make it non-existent because you say so. This is especially true in light of historical precedence (EU being formed through administrative regulation) and the known fact the public's business is being conducted in secret. If you think these meetings are being conducted with the people's best interests at heart, I want whatever Canuckistani weed you are smoking, comrade. Why are you NAU deniers so faulty with your logic? Your claim (denial of known facts) does not refute the facts. I think someone pays people like you to waste everyone's time with your globalist agenda and inherent stupidity. Wouldn't you be better off at some conspiracy theorist web site? Facts are not theories, so give it a rest. You won't win this argument. In fact, when you break out the tin foil hat ad hominem you've already lost it. Lastly, where were the checks and balances against war criminals like Bush and Rice illegally invading another country? You live in some fantasy world somehow devoid of despotism, and we Americans call this fantasy world Canada. You are pretty naive if you think there is not, nor has there ever been, an attempt to consolidate wealth and power in this world. As my german friends would say, "You are like a clown in the circus."

Thu, 08/21/2008 - 15:42
Roger Strong

>> EU being formed through administrative regulation Think about that for a second. The EU was PUBLICLY planned and negotiated for DECADES. After all that, the citizens of each country got a series of votes on the subject, over several years. And you think a few guys in a back room can simply declare a similar union, and make it stick? THIS is why I use the "tinfoil hat" description - your fantasy is just so completely out of touch with reality. And that's not even taking in the two very big reasons why an EU-style union wouldn't fly in North America: 1) The EU has several major powers, and plenty of smaller ones that could team up. No one country can dominate the rest. North America on the other hand would be totally dominated by the US population and economy. So for Canada to join, it would require equal say in things like legal and monetary policy. This in turn would be unfair to Americans. It won't happen. 2) We haven't had the cycle of major war after major war that the EU was created to end. Not just WWII, WWI and the Napoleonic wars, but "little" ones like Thirty Years War - a third of the population of Germany wiped out. >> the known fact the public's business is being conducted in secret. Private business is conducted in secret. Public politics are often conducted in secret. But any changes to government policies and laws - especially constitutional law - are done in public. The DMCA for example may be a Very Bad Law, but it was fully public, with people protesting it, long before it was voted into effect. (There wasn't *enough* people protesting it.) Any EU-style union plan could only be done in public - over many years, with public votes (in Canada at least) - like the EU was. >> I think someone pays people like you to waste >> everyone's time with your globalist agenda >> and inherent stupidity. More likely, someone pays YOU to smother GENUINE concerns about globalism with your tinfoil hat fantasies and their inherent stupidity. >> where were the checks and balances [...] >> illegally invading another country They lied and manipulated the evidence, and frankly I think they should be jailed for doing so. But in the end the invasion wasn't illegal despite all the legal claims otherwise. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." By failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means. More importantly, the American public supported the war, and supported Bush. That's the ultimate check/balance. It's to

Thu, 08/21/2008 - 15:43
Roger Strong

It's too late to say, "we never really elected him." He got his vote of approval - he was RE-ELECTED. Even after it went public that they manipulated the evidence, after the torture in Iraq, Gitmo and elsewhere became public, after the Patriot Act, after many were held without trial or legal representation, the American public still reelected him. There was minor protest, but NOTHING on the scale of the Vietnam or anti-Nixon rallies. But do you really believe that the American public would support an NAU, giving Canada an equal say in their economic and monetary policy? I certainly don't.

Tue, 06/30/2009 - 07:08
Doctor Biobrain
biobrain.blogspot.com

24Ahead - I just wanted to thank you for straightening me out about what an outrageous liar Obama is. Him having his people delete that one sentence was really an eye-opener for me. And it really helped that you insulted anyone who disagreed with you on the messageboard for the Pat Boone article [1] I saw you at. I don't like to be insulted, so I made extra sure to join your team so your insults would no longer apply to me. So I'm out of the Cult of Obama and am now living the truth-based life. I wrote all about it at my blog: The Question Crusade [2] Enjoy!

Links:
------
[1] washingtonindependent.com/49104/pat-boone-joins-the-birthers
[2] biobrain.blogspot.com/2009/06/question-crusade.html