The Obama Conspiracy

[Ron Ecker]

I don't understand how he could not be a US citizen if his birth mother was an American, regardless of where he is born.

I think the law says his mother had be at least 18 years old for him to be a US citizen if born overseas. (Why I don't know.) She didn't qualify.

[William Kelly]

I don't understand how he could not be a US citizen if his birth mother was an American, regardless of where he is born.

I think the law says his mother had be at least 18 years old for him to be a US citizen if born overseas. (Why I don't know.) She didn't qualify.

Ron,

That's the child must be under 18 to obtain citizenship papers, not the mother.

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/overseas/overseas_703.html

"A Consular Report of Birth can be prepared only at an American consular office overseas while the child is under the age of 18."

The mother can give birth on the moon, and if she is a US citizen, so is the child.

So how is Obama not a citizen even if born in Africa or Indonesia?

BK

[Ron Ecker]

Bill,

I was trying to operate from memory, and got the age issue all screwed up. What the law says is that if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of a child's birth overseas, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

Obama's mother was only 18 when he was born. If he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, then his mother didn't meet the years of U.S. residence requirement.

[Len Colby]

Bill,

I was trying to operate from memory, and got the age issue all screwed up. What the law says is that if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of a child's birth overseas, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

Obama's mother was only 18 when he was born. If he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, then his mother didn't meet the years of U.S. residence requirement.

Bill/All – Ron is correct the law changed some time after 1961. The residency rule seems to have been aimed at naturalized citizens giving birth overseas but as written Obama would not be entitled to citizenship IF he were born outside the country. But since he seems to have been clearly born in Hawaii the point is moot.

Christopher – You mention officials refusing to provide records regarding Obama’s birth, can you provide a citation that this happened?

As for ‘attacking the messenger’, it is legitimate to question the credibility of someone if they make claims that one has to take their word for because they don’t provide any documentation.

[Ron Ecker]

It would of course be possible to doctor a birth certificate, and a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper doesn't mean he was born in Hawaii. But there are a couple of things that raise legitimate doubts, in my view, about Obama being born in Hawaii.

I recall reading that his African grandmother remembers him being born in Kenya (and Corsi claims other relatives who remember this). I also remember reading that a commercial airliner would not let his mother fly out of Kenya so late in her pregnancy.

Has his African grandmother been on 60 Minutes, or interviewed anywhere else in the national media, about what she knows or remembers? If not, why not? And it sounds reasonable to me (whether it's in fact their policy or not) that commercial airliners would not let women take off on overseas flights when they're about to have a baby.

[William Kelly]

Bill,

I was trying to operate from memory, and got the age issue all screwed up. What the law says is that if only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of a child's birth overseas, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.

Obama's mother was only 18 when he was born. If he was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, then his mother didn't meet the years of U.S. residence requirement.

Okay, my point is that if that indeed is the case, then he/they have pulled a fast one, and now illegally occupy the presidency of the United States, power that the American people have invested in him, however illegal, and they will not permit him to be stripped of that power, at least until he screws up.

And it's nice that he pulled off a coup and took over power without violence or assassinating anybody. God Bless him.

But I have a feeling that others have checked this out and it doesn't hold up.

His African grandmother from Kenya was at the inaguration by the way.

BK

[Ron Ecker]

His African grandmother from Kenya was at the inaguration by the way.

And Joe Biden didn't take the opportunity to ask her if Obama was born in Kenya? (Another bloodless coup!)

[Len Colby]

It would of course be possible to doctor a birth certificate, and a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper doesn't mean he was born in Hawaii. But there are a couple of things that raise legitimate doubts, in my view, about Obama being born in Hawaii.

I recall reading that his African grandmother remembers him being born in Kenya (and Corsi claims other relatives who remember this). I also remember reading that a commercial airliner would not let his mother fly out of Kenya so late in her pregnancy.

Has his African grandmother been on 60 Minutes, or interviewed anywhere else in the national media, about what she knows or remembers? If not, why not? And it sounds reasonable to me (whether it's in fact their policy or not) that commercial airliners would not let women take off on overseas flights when they're about to have a baby.

"It would of course be possible to doctor a birth certificate"

True but two Hawaiian state officials said his is authentic so either they are “in on it” or he was born in Hawaii. The St. Petersburg Times reported it is identical to that of a Hawaiian born staff member; it was also examined by investigators from the Annenberg School of Journalism. He has a tax payer ID number and presumably has a passport (he has traveled overseas), since there is no evidence he was naturalized let alone is a permanent resident presumably the Social Security Administration (or IRS) and Passport Office accepted the copies of the birth certificate he provided at the time.

The people pushing the theory he was born in Kenya complain 1) he hasn’t produced his 1961 birth certificate and 2) they can’t find his birth records at the hospital. I was born a few years after Obama and I don’t know where mine is either I imagine many members of this forum don’t know where theirs are either, perhaps Corsi and Farrah should produce theirs. As to the second objection I doubt many hospitals keep such records for decades.

Another reason to doubt this “theory” is that it wasn’t raised by the Clinton or McCain teams. Presumably as soon as such rumors surfaced they would have investigated and if they though they had any merit would have raised them.

"and a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper doesn't mean he was born in Hawaii"

Since the parents address was listed in Hawaii and no mention was made of him being born elsewhere it seems implicit. Also the pro-Clinton blogger who originally was try to find evidence Obama wasn't born in the US wrote "in 1961 these announcements came directly from the Vital Statistics Office as reported by local hospitals, according to the researcher who found this information." and the source of the info is listed as being "Health Bureau Statistics"

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/07/2...born-in-hawaii/

The exact same notice appeared the following day in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. The numerous birth announcements above and below the Obama listing also were identical in both papers, which were unaffiliated, competing publications.

Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.

"Those were listings that came over from the state Department of Health," he said. "They would send the same thing to both papers."

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/.../SPECIALOBAMA08

The 2nd newspaper reported back in March 2004 that he was born in Honolulu

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/03/21/news/story4.html

"I recall reading that his African grandmother remembers him being born in Kenya (and Corsi claims other relatives who remember this)."

Corsi claimed lots of things about John Kerry that were shown to be untrue. Does he have her or any other relatives saying this on tape? If so why haven't we seen or heard it.

"I also remember reading that a commercial airliner would not let his mother fly out of Kenya so late in her pregnancy."

IIRC this was mere speculation and no evidence has been provided. I'm not even sure it has been establisehed she went to Kenya while pregnant.

Edited January 24, 2009 by Len Colby

[William Kelly]

His African grandmother from Kenya was at the inaguration by the way.

And Joe Biden didn't take the opportunity to ask her if Obama was born in Kenya? (Another bloodless coup!)

Maybe he did while they were dancing at the ball.

And thanks to Len for posting that link to the newspaper report, and to Lori Starfelt, the researcher who went to the trouble of actually checking the newspapers.

Now if isn't a citizen, then they went to the trouble of producing disinformation.

Maybe the plan was for him to take over the USA presidency from the beginning?

See, anybody really can be president. You don't even have to be a real citizen.

BK

Edited January 24, 2009 by William Kelly

[Ron Ecker]

Maybe the plan was for him to take over the USA presidency from the beginning?

We know that Obama once worked, for some reason, for a CIA front company (I forget the name). George H.W. Bush was CIA. There is speculation that young Bill Clinton did work for the CIA as a student overseas, and we know of course about the CIA drug smuggling that went on in Clinton's Arkansas. Clinton, in effect, may be CIA.

Maybe there's a pattern here.

[Guest Tom Scully]

Maybe the plan was for him to take over the USA presidency from the beginning?

We know that Obama once worked, for some reason, for a CIA front company (I forget the name). George H.W. Bush was CIA. There is speculation that young Bill Clinton did work for the CIA as a student overseas, and we know of course about the CIA drug smuggling that went on in Clinton's Arkansas. Clinton, in effect, may be CIA.

Maybe there's a pattern here.

What I saw in the happy and content looking faces of the masses assembled last tuesday on the national mall in Washington, strongly impressed me, that this time, not only have our oppressive elite class succeeded in avoiding a "pitchfork moment", resulting from negative reaction to the morally and fiscally bankrupting years of Bush-Cheney, but that their latest puppet president, the front man to help us "pay no attention to the men behind the curtain", is enthusiastically accepted by the masses who the elite exploit and oppress and thus, fear might someday "rise up" against them, as "one of us", and "on our side". Well done!

The powers that be, correctly reckoned that it would take more this time, than the appearance of "backing off" they did after 12 years of Reagan/Bush in 1993, when they delivered Bill Clinton to the oval office as a pressure relief, distraction, just as they had in the "delivery" of the patrician, FDR in 1933. This time, they presented us with a "front man" of their sponsorship, who instantly convinced so many that the men behind the curtain have retreated. The truth is that Obama's assignment is to balance the elite's goal of as little change as possible, while avoiding, at all costs, the possibility of masses taking to the streets, in a long overdue, pitchfork moment.....

The purpose of the US presidency and of the privately owned, free press, is to drive home the message that, no matter how flagrant the abuse and corruption directed at the rest off us by concentrated wealth and power is or is perceived:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...9679C946596D6CF

ASTOR SEES NO VALUE IN SOCIALIST CREED; Evils Will Be Eradicated Without Overturning Our Government, He Tells Sinclair.

VINCENT ASTOR.

January 12, 1914, Monday

My theory on the how and why of "the pattern here", is described beyond my ability to do so, by James Carroll, son of the founding director of the DIA, Gen. Joseph Carroll:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...y_over_history/

...The shallowness of contemporary public discourse, devoid of history, is everywhere visible -- from the "eternal now" of celebrity journalism to the absurdity of an "antiwar" rhetoric that assumes, in fact, a permanent US war machine in Iraq. In the emerging Democratic consensus, forged by Congressional leaders and presidential front-runners, supposedly in opposition to Bush's war, "out now" is becoming "out when conditions permit" -- which is, of course, Bush's exact position. Such conditions will never come; therefore -- Garrison Forever.

Yet, speaking of history, this conjuring of the appearance of opposition where none actually exists has been mandated by the American political system since the onset of the Cold War. The quadrennial political puppet show, highlighting not opposition but its appearance, is essential to keeping the captive-taking war machine running and to inoculating the American people from the viral knowledge that they themselves were first to be captured....

...Upton Sinclair, for example, showed the rapaciousness of capitalism, the vampire-like appetite with which it feeds on the blood of human beings. Even with "reforms" ("The Jungle" led to the establishment of the Food and Drug Administration), the profit-worshipping economy to this day eludes controls that would protect majorities of citizens in this country and across the world. Sinclair Lewis, for his part, showed how the simultaneously banalizing methods of capitalist enterprise (false advertising, consumerism, pieties of affluence, amoral bureaucracy) are exactly what that enterprise created to keep from being criticized.....

The Brass Check

A Study of American Journalism

By Upton Sinclair

Who owns the press, and why?

.....The thesis of this book is that our newspapers do not represent public interests, but private interests; they do not represent humanity, but property; they value a man, not because he is great, or good, or wise, or useful, but because he is wealthy, or of service to vested wealth. And suppose that you wished to make a test of this thesis, a test of the most rigid scientific character--what would you do? You would put up two men, one representing property, the other representing humanity. You would endeavor rigidly to exclude all other factors; you would find one man who represented property to the exclusion of humanity, and you would find another man who represented humanity to the exclusion of property. You would put these two men before the public, having them do the same thing, so far as humanly possible, and then you would keep a record of the newspaper results. These results would give you mathematically, in column-inches, the relative importance to each newspaper of the man of property and the man of humanity. Such an exact, scientific test I have now to record.

I introduce the two persons. First, the man of humanity: At the time the test was made, in December, 1913, he was thirty-five years of age; he was known everywhere throughout the United States, and was, with the possible exception of Jack London, the most widely known of living American writers throughout the world. At the time of the test he did not own more than a couple of hundred dollars.

Second, the man of property. He was at this time twenty-two years of age, and had done four things which had been widely heralded: First, he was born. Second, he decided to conduct some experiments in farming. Third, he decided to marry a young lady of his acquaintance. Fourth, he inherited sixty-five million dollars. Three of these things are not at all unusual; many a farmer's boy has done them, and has not had the distinction of seeing the newspapers devote columns of space to them. But the other thing is quite unique; since the beginning of American history, no other person has ever inherited sixty-five million dollars. So it may be asserted beyond dispute that this young man's reputation depended upon property, and nothing but property; he was the perfect specimen which the sociological scientist would require for his test--the man of property pur sang.....

....In addition to this, the "Times" publishes every Sunday an illustrated supplement of pictures to entertain its variety of readers; and it happened that on the Sunday when it published the "Hundred Neediest Cases" it published also a photograph of a "recreation building" which young Mr. Vincent Astor was erecting on his country estate at a cost of one million dollars. This building was for the use of Astor and his friends; it had no place for the public. It was devoted to tennis and swimming and gymnastics; it had no place for literature, music, art, science, or religion--it was a typical product of the private property regime. So the man who represented humanity sat himself down and wrote a "Christmas letter" to the millionaire, in substance asking him how he could enjoy his Christmas, how he could be content to play in a million-dollar "recreation-building," when he had before him such positive evidence that millions of his fellow-beings were starving. This letter was picturesque, interesting and well-written; as news it was in every way "live."

So came the first test. This "Christmas letter" to Vincent Astor was offered to every newspaper in New York City on the same date, addressed "City Editor," special delivery. It was sent to both morning and afternoon papers. And how many published it? Just one--the New York "Call"--the Socialist paper. No other paper in New York, morning or afternoon, printed a line of it, or referred to it in any way. It was offered to every big news agency in the country. And how many handled it? Not one. Outside of New York it was published in the "Appeal to Reason," and in one Chicago paper which happened to be edited by a personal friend of the author's. So here you have the first verdict of the capitalist journalism of New York City; a letter written by a man of humanity represents a total news-value of precisely 0.

There the matter might have rested, the test might never have been completed, but for the fact that the millionaire disagreed with the judgment of his newspaper editors; he thought the letter of the author was important, and he answered it.....

Monthly Review May 2002 Robert W. McChesney and Ben Scott

....What has been forgotten is that, although he wrote ninety-two books and twenty-nine pamphlets, for much of Sinclair’s career he was known as a “two book author.” The other book, besides The Jungle, was The Brass Check, which he published himself in 1919. In The Brass Check, Sinclair made a systematic and damning critique of the severe limitations of the “free press” in the United States. “(T)he thesis of this book,” he wrote, is “that American Journalism is a class institution serving the rich and spurning the poor.”*If The Jungle was notorious for its aggressive assaults on capitalist industry, The Brass Check pulled even fewer punches. The title itself is a reference to the chit issued to patrons of urban brothels at the time. Sinclair drew an analogy between journalists and prostitutes, beholden to the agenda, ideology, and policies of the monied elites that owned and controlled the press. It was an integral part of his broader critique of the corruption of U.S. politics and the appalling nature of capitalism: “Politics, Journalism, and Big Business work hand in hand for the hoodwinking of the public and the plundering of labor” (p. 153)......

... In the text of the book itself, he called it “the most important and most dangerous book I have ever written”(p. 429).

Yet while The Jungle remains a staple of American literature, The Brass Check has been all but forgotten. This is the case despite its groundbreaking critique of the structural basis of U.S. journalism, arguably the first such systematic critique ever made. Anticipating much of the best in more recent structural media criticism, Sinclair explained the class bias built into journalism in a four-part systemic model emphasizing the importance of owners, advertisers, public relations, and the web of economic interests tied into the media system, and invested in its control of public opinion. Integrating the critique of the press into the larger history of Progressive Era activism, Sinclair pointed to the centrality of the media in all of the problems of social injustice which attended the rise of modern capitalism.

Yet, those historians who bother to mention The Brass Check dismiss it as ephemeral, explaining that the problems it depicts have been solved. ....

.......Moreover, as commercial pressures on the integrity of U.S. journalism have intensified over the past two decades, much of Sinclair’s critique now appears startlingly accurate. What then explains the erasure of The Brass Check, not to mention the entire radical tradition it crystallizes, from public consciousness, or even from the reading lists of contemporary media scholars, both mainstream and critical?.....

....Critics loosely charged that Sinclair had been sloppy with his facts in The Brass Check, and the book did not stand up to close scrutiny. Sinclair, a fanatic for factual accuracy, directly challenged any of those he criticized in The Brass Check to sue him for criminal libel—often in the footnotes of later editions of the book—if they could prove a single word in the text was false. No suits were ever forthcoming. Indeed, in 1921, the Associated Press announced it was appointing a commission to review, collect evidence, and denounce the charges Sinclair made about the AP in The Brass Check. The project was quietly abandoned without any report, formal or informal, being issued (p. 376).

In our view it was this smear campaign, more than anything else, which led to the virtual disappearance of The Brass Check by the middle of the century. ....

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/09/8851/

Published on Friday, May 9, 2008 by Salon.com

CNN, the Pentagon's 'Military Analyst Program' and Gitmo

by Glenn Greenwald

......But what is most extraordinary about all of this is that huge numbers of Americas who were subjected to this propaganda by their own Government still don't know that they were, because the television networks which broadcast it to them refuse to tell them about it, opting instead to suppress the story and stonewall any efforts to find out what happened. As corrupt as the Pentagon was here, our nation's major media outlets were at least just as bad. Their collective Pravda-like suppression now of the entire story -- behavior so blatantly corrupt that even the likes of Howie Kurtz and The Politico are strongly condemning them -- has become the most significant and revealing aspect of the entire scandal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

May 24, 2008

2 Inquiries Set on Pentagon Publicity Effort

By DAVID BARSTOW

The inspector general’s office at the Defense Department announced on Friday that it would investigate a Pentagon public affairs program that sought to transform retired military officers who work as television and radio analysts into “message force multipliers” who could be counted on to echo Bush administration talking points about Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and terrorism in general....

....The G.A.O. said it had already begun looking into the program and would give a legal opinion on whether it violated longstanding prohibitions against spending government money to spread propaganda to audiences in the United States.

The Defense Department suspended the program last month, just days after it was the focus of an article in The New York Times. The article described an ambitious Pentagon campaign to cultivate dozens of military analysts as “surrogates” to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. The analysts, many with undisclosed ties to military contractors, were wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior government officials.

The inspector general’s office said its inquiry would specifically look at whether special access to Pentagon leaders “may have given the contractors a competitive advantage.”.....

.... Representative Paul W. Hodes, Democrat of New Hampshire, added: “The American people were spun by Bush administration message multipliers. They were fed administration talking points believing they were getting independent military analysis.”

Representative Duncan Hunter of California, the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, objected to the amendment, arguing that retired officers working as military analysts were a “great asset” for the country.....

The exploited massed have the power of sheer numbers of votes to actually bring about change that would transfer away the obscene level of concentration of wealth and power in the US, but the wealth and power have the organization and cohesiveness to "catpult the propaganda", to so far at least, prevent anything in the best interests of the voting majority, from ever actually happening:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&sa...sa=N&tab=wp

The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty‎ - Page 94

by Kitty Kelley - Biography & Autobiography - 2004 - 705 pages

"I remember when George Bush was tapped for Skull and Bones," said Joseph Verner

Reed Jr., who was ten years old at the time. Prescott and Dorothy Bush ...

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en...skull+and+bones

YALE BONES CONNECT BUSH, KERRY

New York Daily News - Mar 4, 2004

Since its founding in 1832, Skull and Bones has had fewer than 2000 members, ... Bonesman Dana Milbank to chronicle the battle between Bush and Kerry. ...

http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2006/12/l...ciation-of.html

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=o...mp;aq=f&oq=

For the President's Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the ... - Google Books Result

by Christopher Andrew - 1996 - History - 688 pages

He was also a member of the same Masonic lodge as J. Edgar Hoover. ... made contact with a naval intelligence officer, Lieutenant Commander Glenn Howell, ...

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/m...992_3_106.shtml

...The mastermind behind this conspiracy was a millionaire friend of Herbert Hoover’s who was an officer in the Naval Intelligence Reserve and claimed to be acting under the President’s authority.

The main evidence for this strange story, so reminiscent of Watergate, appears in the recently uncovered diary of Glenn Howell, who in 1930 was the director of Naval Intelligence for the New York City area. Howell was no stranger to break-ins and espionage against his fellow citizens. In his 1930 diary he speaks confidently of infiltrating and spying on Communist cells and then arranging for break-ins and the theft of their files. But one particular job made him nervous.

On May 21, 1930, Howell met with the financier Lewis Strauss—Hoover’s friend, who was a lieutenant commander in the Naval Intelligence reserve—and Strauss told him that James J. O’Brien, a former New York City policeman who had been dismissed from the force in 1908, was planning to publish documents embarrassing to Hoover. Strauss said the President wanted to see what O’Brien had, and had authorized him to “utilize the services of any of our various secret services” to find out. Also present at this meeting was Lt. Cmdr. Paul Foster, who was both Strauss’s friend and Howell’s predecessor as head of local Navy Intelligence. Foster, a Medal of Honor winner in Mexico in 1914, had resigned from the Navy the year before and entered business, possibly with Strauss’s aid.

Here is Howell’s account of the meeting and the events that followed.

•

May 21, 1930

I left at four for the offices of Kuhn, Loeb and Company at 52 William Street, where Paul Foster and I had an appointment with Lewis Strauss. It is an extraordinary thing that he wants of me, and I think that I am reasonably safe in setting this down here with the understanding that whoever may chance to read these lines will keep his mouth shut until the passage of time makes silence unnecessary.

Now a book which has obtained a heavy circulation this year is The Strange Death of President Harding, an astounding—if true—set of charges preferred by one of the former White House detectives. There was probably a lot in Mr. Harding’s life that would not bear the light of day.

Now Lewis Strauss is a millionaire. He is married to the daughter of the Loeb of Kuhn, Loeb and Company. He is a partner in this noted banking firm. Another partner is William Wiseman, head of the British Intelligence Service in America during the World War and supposed by our people to have continued his activities here for an indefinite period after the close of the War. Sir William and Strauss are intimate friends. And Strauss is a lieutenant commander in our Naval Intelligence Reserve.

Now when Paul Foster had my job he believed in Strauss unreservedly. So do I—with certain reservations. However, when he asked Paul and me to this conference this afternoon I agreed to come with considerable curiosity.

Here is the problem.

But before I begin I must note down Strauss’s connection with Mr. Hoover.

Strauss was Mr. Hoover’s private secretary at a dollar a year when Mr. Hoover was serving in charge of Belgian Relief Work, and he is a close personal friend of the President. Four times in recent months I have noticed that Mr. and Mrs. Strauss have been guests at the White House over weekends. They are evidently close friends of the Hoovers.

The existing situation is this:....

....But O’Brien’s obsession with Herbert Hoover was by no means over. Obviously trying to milk his meager findings for all they were worth, he turned up again in the news in 1932, when he sued a fellow blackmailer, one John Hamill, for publishing The Strange Career of Mr. Hoover, or Under Two Flags, which used material that both men had gathered but that only O’Brien had paid for. The book accused Hoover of having defrauded mine investors (”racketeering in the billions“) and of having failed to save the life of a British nurse from a German firing squad. The litigation dragged on for a year, during which time Hamill, under threat of libel, repudiated his own book and O’Brien published a similar volume, Hoover’s Millions and How He Made Them. Just a few weeks before the defeated Hoover left the White House in 1933, a New York court dismissed the case of O’Brien v. Hamill on the grounds that both “were guilty [through their books] of attempting to deceive the American public,” and therefore neither merited any legal relief in their bitter dispute.

Although both Howell and Foster pursued successful civilian careers, Lewis Strauss, alone among the clearly implicated participants in the O’Brien break-in, went on to much greater fame and power. By the late 1930s he had become a well-known philanthropist. Nine months before Pearl Harbor he took a leave from Kuhn, Loeb to use his business skills on behalf of the Navy. He soon became a rear admiral; after the war he served as a commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission. In 1954 he helped bring about the downfall of J. Robert Oppenheimer, who had opposed the hydrogen bomb, when the physicist was brought before a security hearing. Strauss had tried to pick a “hanging jury” to hear the case, may even have bribed one of the judges, and secretly arranged with the FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover, to have the agency wiretap Oppenheimer’s and his attorneys’ phones. Strauss passed on the wiretap information to the AEC prosecutor—certainly a, breach of ethics and possibly a violation of law.

The clear evidence on Strauss in this 1930 conspiracy, the strongly suggestive evidence on Richey, and the disturbing implications about Herbert Hoover serve as useful reminders that Watergate had powerful antecedents.....

They hate fact filled criticism, so we have to pour it on, constantly !

Edited January 24, 2009 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

Maybe the plan was for him to take over the USA presidency from the beginning?

We know that Obama once worked, for some reason, for a CIA front company (I forget the name).

The CIA – Obama “link” is tenuous at best. William Blum wrote:

In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Fathers", Barack Obama writes of taking a job at some point after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as "a consulting house to multinational corporations" in New York City, and his functions as a "research assistant" and "financial writer".

The odd part of Obama's story is that he doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. Equally odd is that the Times did not remind its readers that the newspaper itself had disclosed in 1977 that Business International had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960.

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer65.html

As Blum indubitably knows it was common for companies to provide cover for CIA agents. But hey why let the truth get in the way of a juicy insinuation? That Obama briefly worked for such a company 23 - 4 years after it was last know to have done so proves little if anything. Is every who ever worked for the company or any other that provided CIA agents cover suspect? That would include tens of thousands of people CBS, Time-Life, ABC and NBC (half owned by GE) did so as did many other media companies and a lot of other companies of various stripe including insurance giant AIG.

[Len Colby]

My quote of Blum came from the forum linked below and was incomplete

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=337854

The following was not included:

The British journal, Lobster Magazine – which, despite its incongruous name, is a venerable international publication on intelligence matters – has reported that Business International was active in the 1980s promoting the candidacy of Washington-favored candidates in Australia and Fiji.12 In 1987, the CIA overthrew the Fiji government after but one month in office because of its policy of maintaining the island as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that American nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls.13 After the Fiji coup, the candidate supported by Business International, who was much more amenable to Washington's nuclear desires, was reinstated to power – R.S.K. Mara was Prime Minister or President of Fiji from 1970 to 2000, except for the one-month break in 1987.

The significance is that it relates to the company's activities at the time Obama worked there rather than decades earlier. Unfortunately Lobster is only accessible to subscribers. Perhaps a member here who has access could post a more complete version but the following excert came up in a search

The original expose by Australian television's Four Corners (National Times, July 4-10 1982) is actually far more informative. What was exposed was that Mara's election strategy had been mapped out by a US consultancy firm, Business International. Boasting offices all over the world Business International was described by the New York Times as doing contract work for the CIA.(New York Times, December 27 1977) Business International came to Fiji thanks to a wealthy businessman and friend of Mara.

So Obama worked for a large company that worked on the “election strategy” of a candidate who lost and was later put in power by a coup supposedly backed by the CIA. A coup that by most accounts had more to do with ethnic rather than political issues. The link is still tenuous.

http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/2773.cfm

Edited January 25, 2009 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

The link may be tenuous, but when someone rises to POTUS almost overnight, you have to wonder what kind of help he's getting. Granted he's slick, but who helped with greasing the way?

Edited January 25, 2009 by Ron Ecker

[Evan Burton]

Well, he's given orders for Guantanamo Bay detention facility to be closed, outlawed torture by the CIA, and held his administration up to higher standards of disclosure. Not too bad for the first few days.