Revelations from George Stephanopoulos, Newsweek, and Columbia grads from Israel.
(Sep 4th, 2019) — The recent DOJ report on James Comey, the ongoing FISA investigation, and the probe of the Russia-collusion investigators under John Durham are all pointing back to POTUS 44, formerly known as Barry Soetoro. He wanted to know how Peter Strzok and Lisa Page of the FBI’s coup clan were doing. In similar style, designated prevaricator Susan Rice is on record that 44 wanted the counterintelligence operation to be done “by the book.” It didn’t exactly work out that way.
As investigators probe what the president knew, and when he knew it, other revelations about the former Barry Soetoro have managed to escape notice. This lapse comes despite massive revelations from his own handlers.
According to official biographer and Pulitzer winner David Garrow, the defining Dreams from My Father is not a memoir or biography. It is a novel, and in this work of historical fiction the author is a “composite character.” The implications proved alarming to fans and family alike.
The president, “spent the first 20 years of his life going by the nickname Barry,” the former First Lady explains in the 2018 Becoming. “Somewhere along the way, though, he’d stepped into the fullness of his birth name – Barack Hussein Obama.” Michelle does not note that, in all his writings from 1958 to 1964, the Kenyan Barack Obama mentions nothing about an American wife and Hawaiian-born son. Becoming portrays the future president as an “exceptional” and “gifted” student who “worshipped books.” At Columbia he “consumed volumes of political philosophy as if it were beach reading.”
The stint at Columbia got dramatic treatment in the 2016 film Barry. As Matthew Cooper of Newsweek noted, the Netflix production “charts his college years in New York, when ‘Barry,’ as he was known, wrestled with his racial identity.” Still, there was a problem.
“I was at Columbia a year behind Obama,” Cooper explained, but “I never knew Obama.” As Cooper recalled, Clinton factotum George Stephanopoulos was a year ahead of Barry and didn’t know him either. Neither did many other Columbia students, including those in Barry’s own class.
Further reading: Obama was not constitutionally a “natural born Citizen” and thus was constitutionally not eligible to be President and Command-in-Chief of our military. The fix was in by both major political parties to ignore the “natural born Citizen” clause in the 2008 presidential election cycle, and since. See the Euler Diagram below which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships and graphically shows who is and who is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and the logical fallacy of those who argue otherwise: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/
Senator Kamala Devi Harris (D-California) cannot become president unless she is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Constitution contains few eligibility criteria for our nation’s highest post. But being born to the country is one of them. Since a vice president must be able to succeed to the presidency, Harris could not run as vice president, either.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that only a natural born citizen can serve as president. The Constitution clearly distinguishes between a citizen and a “natural born Citizen.” There is a special case of citizen who is also natural born. An interesting but often-ignored requirement is that one must also have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The intent indicates an attempt to ensure allegiance to the United States by a strong connection. This was the result of continued loyalties to the British Crown among Tories and others after the Revolutionary War, where some politicians even suggesting the nation should return to a limited monarchy. The Framers thus wanted to eliminate “family influences” among our presidents.
Some may think of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if we ignore the requirement that a person born in the country must be “under the jurisdiction thereof,” the Constitution clearly recognizes that not all citizens are eligible to be president.
Both of Harris’s parents were present in the United States under student visas when Harris was born in Oakland, California. They were not U.S. citizens at that time. A student visa requires a non-immigrant intent. That is, one must swear that they have no intent to stay. Harris’ parents appear to have lied. …. continue reading at: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/190712
First We Had Obots (Obama Online Bots & Trolls). Then We Had CruzBots (Ted Cruz Supporters Tried It Too ), But Were Not As Good At It As the Far Left. Now We Have the Far Left Hbots (Harris Online Bots & Trolls). But They All Use the Same Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation and Gas Lighting to Change the Meaning of Language to Push Their Agenda — Especially to Change the Meaning of Words and Terms in Our U.S. Constitution.
Twenty-Five rules of Obot & Hbot online disinformation specialists — aka “Gas Lighting” and in more erudite propaganda-pushing marketing circles, more euphemistically known as “Perception Management”.
Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney — http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. 2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit. 3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact. 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. 5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. 6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint. 7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. 8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. 9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect. 10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. 11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. 12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. 13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact. 14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. 16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue. 17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’ 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. 20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. 21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body which is in your pocket. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. 24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. 25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinformation players/teams by one or more of seven distinct posting traits: 1. Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input … ; 2. Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach … ; 3. Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions … ; 4. Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams … ; 5. Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ [and are quick to label anyone opposed to their view as a conspiracy nut and other put-down names] … ; 6. Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance … ; and 7. Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. Click here for the full review and discussion of these frequently used disinformation traits of the far left, and the new 8th one, commonly used by Obot [and now Hbot] operative quick response teams: http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
# # # #
Also see “Gas Lighting“, another disinformation term to describe the orchestrated confusion of reality to confuse the target … which in Obama’s and the far left’s case is the American electorate … all enabled by a cowardly and complicit U.S. Congress and an enabling and complicit main stream media: