Main Menu

Archive | Smears

Two films smear Obama

“There is no evidence for any of this”

So says The Daily Beast’s Michelle Goldberg of Dinesh D’Souza’s book and film, Obama’s America, and it’s claims about Barack Obama’s mother. Goldberg has equally disparaging remarks for Joel Gilbert’s film, Dreams from My Real Father.

Despite their dubious claims, Obama’s America reached the number one spot on the NY Times bestseller list and Dreams is being mailed to a reported one million voters in Ohio and other states.

The title of Goldberg’s article is: “With ‘Dreams From My Real Father,’ Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?” My answer to this question is that Obama haters have been bottom feeders from the beginning, and this is not a new low. I will admit that this latest round is far worse than what I wrote about in my article, “It’s an insult to his mother” back in August of 2009. I can’t help but believe that most Americans will not react kindly to Obama’s mother being portrayed as a “fat whore.”

Personally, I think Obama takes after his grandfather, Stanley Dunham. Look at the eyes.


Check out Loren Collins’ in-depth look at Dreams at Barackryphal.

Swift boats is a-comin’

Up until now, if you wanted pro-birther media you had to read a supermarket or Internet tabloid, visit a birther blog, or read an ad in the Washington Times newspaper. Today, birthers have joined the many attack ads and robocalls, vying to become a “mainstream” smear campaign.

The original song from 1961 was “Shrimp boats is a-comin’” but I am reminded today of the attacks on John Kerry when he ran for President in 2004, attacks that appeared in the Jerome Corsi book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, which added the term “swiftboating” to the lexicon as:

Swiftboating is American political jargon that is used as a strong pejorative description of some kind of attack that the speaker considers unfair or untrue—for example, an ad hominem attack or a smear campaign.

The Conservative Majority Fund has spent over half a million dollars in just three weeks buying airtime for a birther-style attack ad against Obama titled “Shady Past,” raising issues of Obama’s birthplace and social-security number and making robocalls. Like Corsi’s 2004 book, the Conservative Majority Fund ad is to put it bluntly, a pack of lies.

Apuzzo fulminates against Fukino

Given how much damage Dr. Chiyome Fukino did to the birther movement when she disclosed Barack Obama not only had a long form birth certificate, but that it was signed by a doctor and thereby forcing the “Obama was not born in the US” crowd onto the last bit of land still not covered by the factual flood: “everybody’s lying,” one would expect the birthers to come out slinging. Attorney Mario Apuzzo, representing one of the more angry of the angry birthers,  has met expectations with his article: An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of Birth. Keep in mind that when a birther titles something “analysis” they usually mean “smear.”

Apuzzo upholds that stereotype with logic such as:

  • We shouldn’t listen to what Fukino, who saw Obama’s birth certificate, has to say because she’s not the current Health Director. Rather we should ask the current acting director who hasn’t seen Obama’s birth certificate about it.
  • Fukino is criticized for not disclosing the second Health Department official’s name who accompanied her to look at the certificate, despite the fact that in her statement on the Department of Health web site, she specifies the title of the person, which can only be Dr. Alvin Onaka, who has been in that position for at least 2 decades.
  • Fukino’s disclosure that a doctor signed the certificate is invalidated by the fact that she didn’t say more about which hospital Obama was born in.
  • Her comments are invalidated by the fact that she didn’t make them earlier.
  • Apuzzo makes the false distinction between birth in Hawaii and registration of a birth in Hawaii. Hawaii only registered people born there in 1961, and now that we know a doctor signed the form, all that grandmother/family fraud rumor is disproved.
  • Apuzzo says: “Obama’s supporters are proclaiming Dr. Fukino’s recent revelations are the death of the ‘birthers.'” He doesn’t disclose who said that. I didn’t say that. I just say that Dr. Fukino’s recent revelations just make them all the more fringe.
  • Tim Adams contradicts Fukino. Tim Adams will not even tell us who told him that there was no long form nor explain how this alleged person could have possibly known. Fukino has seen it herself. Apuzzo plays on public ignorance of vital statistics procedures to suggest that there could be a registration without a birth certificate.

It’s basically crap. Read it if you want, but not before you eat.

The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur

Chester Arthur

Chester Arthur

Obama fringe beliefs center around the meaning of “natural born citizen” (a qualification for the presidency in Article 2 of the U. S. Constitution). One such theory says Barack Obama can’t be president because his father was a British citizen, not an American citizen. Could some other US President have been in the same boat? It turns out that there was one, Chester A. Arthur.

Does this historical precedent settle the argument against citizen-only parentage? No. In a perverse consistency, the the theory claims that Chester A. Arthur wasn’t a legitimate president either, a “usurper” no less. This appears on Leo C. Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen site.

Continue Reading →

Definitive Biography of Chester A. Arthur

Leo C. Donofrio says on his Natural Born Citizen web site that he worked with the author of Chester Alan Arthur by Greg Dehler. I found a  review on by J. Hughes. It’s presented here as a bit of information. This writer and Donofrio agree that the Thomas C Reeves book is the definitive biography.

The author, on the staff of a small Colorado community college, presents a thinly-researched short biography, relying too heavily, as he states, on secondary sources “from Interlibrary Loan.”

Very little is presented about President Arthur’s life. Referencing the Hinman “pamphlet” (actually a book not included in the bibliography) is alluded to when briefly discussing the question on where Arthur was actually born. Too many secondary sources are referenced; not enough original work.

Careful editing is needed: some quotes are not referenced; some adverbs and adjectives don’t fit the sentence-thought; at the end of one paragraph, an unfinished sentence begins.

Julia Sand served as an encourager to President Arthur, and not as the constant critic that Professor Dehler makes her out to be. She, among others, are not listed in the book’s Index, which makes searching for information the more difficult.

Calling Arthur’s role in a major desegregation case as a “minor role,” he actually played a major role in defending the woman involved. Some of Dehler’s “facts” about this, et al, are incorrect.

At best, this is a thin biography, not carefully edited, and not well researched. It is a mostly critical treatment of Chester Arthur’s major contributions to the nation, couched in criticism. With every section that tells some of Arthur’s accomplishments, there is always the “but,” inserted. Even Arthur taking a vacation to Yellowstone Park, is presented from a critical angle, and the real purpose is left unstated.

If you’re looking for the definitive Chester Arthur, see the book by Thomas C. Reeves.

I wonder if I need a separate category just for Chester A. Arthur.

I have requested both Reeves’ biography and Hinman’s little book through interlibrary loan. They will arrive when they arrive and I’ll get to them when I can.

The Mysterious Mr. Hinman

I was slumming over on Donofrio’s Native Born Citizen site trying to separate a little truth from fiction about our dearly departed President Chester A. Arthur and found that some of Donofrio’s information comes third hand from Mr. Arthur P. Hinman, who the New York times describes as a “Democratic operative”. The times reported that Hinman came sniffing around Franklin County, Vt. [Arthur’s birthplace] looking for records.

ST. ALBANS, Vt., Dec. 21.–”A stranger arrived here a few days ago, and registered at the American House as A. P. Hinman, of New-York. Since then he has been very busy in the adjoining town of Fairfield, ostensibly collecting materials for a biography of Vice-President-elect Arthur. He has privately stated to leading Democratic citizens, however, that he is employed by the Democratic National Committee to obtain evidence to show that Gen. Arthur is an unnaturalized foreigner. He claims to have discovered that Gen. Arthur was born in Canada, instead of Fairfield; that his name is Chester Allen instead of Chester Abell [sic]; that he was 50 years old in July instead of October, as has been stated, and generally that he is an alien and ineligible to the office of Vice-President.

The New York Times, 1880

So we have a professional smearbot from the 19th century feeding into a 21st century controversy. Hinman published a little 90-paged book entitled How A British Subject Became President of the United States. One must greet Mr. Hinman with a good bit of skepticism because the thesis of his book was that President Arthur was born in Canada, which isn’t true according to Arthur biographers (including Thomas C. Reeves’ definitive biography Gentleman Boss).

How a British Subject became President of the United States (1844) is now available exclusively here at (3.5 Mb). A higher resolution version is available upon request.