All I’m “determined” to do is to examine the information with which we are all confronted on a daily basis to see if it is real instead of phony. Why? Because I enjoy debunking crap trying to pass itself off as “truth.” It is very easy, even for someone very observant, to fall into the trap of accepting fakery for fact simply because there is a dislike of the object of the fakery. Sometimes we see what we want to see or what we think we should be seeing.

I have never claimed to be “noble,” which is a construct by the commentor. I DO try to be “objective.”

Not surprisingly, the MSM-the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, ABC News, The Hill, etc.–covered for Obama during his trip to Kenya and either did not report on it, or only reported on Obama giving a speech criticizing the corruption of the then current regime and visiting his native village, but didn’t report on his campaigning for Odinga.

Did it ever occur to the commentor that the reason none of the news sources mentioned by him did not cover Obama “campaigning” for Odinga may have been that no such “campaigning” ever happened? Why didn’t FoxNews cover it, if it happened? FoxNews is NOT an Obama-lover. I think we all know that if FoxNews could expose Obama “campaigning” for Odinga that FoxNews would not hesitate to feature it.

Africa is a huge, poor, chaotic, and violent part of the third world, and local news coverage is mostly state controlled, sparse and not very sophisticated by our standards, and any local coverage of Obama that was critical of his activities was, I am sure, not exactly welcomed by our MSM or relayed to their audience.

The commentor believes that the MSM would not be accepting of African “local news coverage.” What I believe is that if FoxNews could get any African “local news coverage” videotape complete with sound of Obama “campaigning” for Odinga is that FoxNews would be pleased as punch to feature it. But soundless videotape and photos of Obama in front of curious crowds in which Odinga might be in the same shot? No reputable news outlet is going to claim such material is proof of anything, and rightly so. Crap is crap, whether it comes from Atlas Shrugs, from African “local news outlets” or any other source.

There were several videos of Obama and Odinga campaigning together that included footage of Obama, Michaelle and Odinga together, and Obama giving speeches in praise of Odinga that I saw when they first hit the Internet back a few years ago, but they have been taken down from the Web due to a complaint that the music used on the videotape infringes on copyright; I have seen this tactic used before by the Left to take down all sorts of embarrassing things that showed up on the Web.

Music can be taken off any videotape. It’s just another soundtrack that can be deleted. The commentor has proven himself to be easily fooled by spliced together, soundless videotape and insignificant photos from Atlas Shrugs so I just HAVE to question his recollection of videos he saw “years ago.”

In any case, I suspect that even if I were to turn up an eyewitness to Obama campaigning for Odinga you would find some excuse to discredit his testimony, and if I found a long video of such campaigning for Odinga by Obama you would, similarly, find some reason to reject it as false.

No doubt, were I to find ABC tape of Obama campaigning for Odinga, you would decide it was fake too. Believe what you will.

Well, considering the fact that folks will say anything to gain fame, notoriety, get themselves on TV or discredit a political figure they don’t like, the commentor is correct that I wouldn’t be inclined to believe “eyewitness” evidence.

But I saw it, I tell you! It landed right in the middle of the road! It had flashing lights and was all glowing and little green men came walking out of it!

However, if I saw a video from any source complete with sound of Obama obviously campaigning for Odinga I would believe it. So far the commentor nor anyone else has been able to produce such a video. What we have seen is soundless videos and photos of Obama in front of curious crowds in which Odinga is in the same shot … which prove nothing. What we have NOT seen is any videotape footage of Obama audibly campaigning for Odinga or even mentioning Odinga’s name.

Let me close by stating to the readers that I do not claim categorically that Obama did not campaign for Odinga. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that Obama DID campaign for Odinga; I am not bound irretrievably to any one point of view. But as of this moment we have no reason to believe such a thing actually happened.

Not surprisingly, the MSM-the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, ABC News, The Hill, etc.–covered for Obama during his trip to Kenya and either did not report on it, or only reported on Obama giving a speech criticizing the corruption of the then current regime and visiting his native villiage, but didn’t report on his campaigning for Odinga.

Africa is a huge, poor, chaotic, and violent part of the third world, and local news coverage is mostly state controlled, sparse and not very sophisticated by our standards, and any local coverage of Obama that was critical of his activities was, I am sure, not exactly welcomed by our MSM or relayed to their audience.

There were several videos of Obama and Odinga campaigning together that included footage of Obama, Michaelle and Odinga together, and Obama giving speeches in praise of Odinga that I saw when they first hit the Internet back a few years ago, but they have been taken down from the Web due to a complaint that the music used on the videotape infringes on copyright; I have seen this tactic used before by the Left to take down all sorts of embarrassing things that showed up on the Web.

In any case, I suspect that even if I were to turn up an eyewitness to Obama campaigning for Odinga you would find some excuse to discredit his testimony, and if I found a long video of such campaigning for Odinga by Obama you would, similarly, find some reason to reject it as false. No doubt, were I to find ABC tape of Obama campaigning for Odinga, you would decide it was fake too. Believe what you will.

Let’s say for the sake of the commentor’s point that there was a fake CNN video with fake audio of Obama campaigning for Odinga. Such a video would be impossible to fabricate where it would be believable, even with Computer Generated Imagery.

The fake audio would have to sound like Obama, the fake words would have to be timed just right to correspond to Obama’s lip movements. Ever seen a foreign movie that was dubbed in English? Even a child can tell that the actors are not really uttering the words you hear. Even a child can tell the dialog is dubbed. And that’s with professional dubbers doing the job. Even then, try as they might, they really fool no one.

It seems to me that if even news sources favorable to Obama–like CNN–report he was in Kenya campaigning for Odinga then he was, actually, in Kenya campaigning for Odinga.

But contrary to what the commentor tries to assert, in neither video presented by the commentor did CNN “report” that Obama was campaigning for Obama. The only thing the CNN footage used in the video reported was that there was violence in Kenya, not that Obama was campaigning for Odinga. I ask the readers to view both videos and note that at no time in the videos is the CNN logo visible when the footage is about Obama. It is obvious that someone took some CNN reportage about violence in Kenya and spliced that in with other footage, source unknown and un-attributed, that someone else produced about Obama.

and that pictures of them together at campaign rallies were actual, fully truthful, unmanipulated pictures of an actual event, rather than piced together and phony CGI manipulations.

I saw soundless video of Obama speaking to crowds in Africa. I saw different photographs of Obama surrounded at various times with many different people, people that were no doubt Kenyan functionaries of various types.

Campaign rallies usually have signs. I saw no signs in any of the footage that had Obama in it.

In fact, none of us can know from the videos presented that the crowds gathered around Obama were there for “campaign rallies.” My guess is that the crowds were there to simply see and hear the famous visiting Senator.

During all this, Odinga managed to get himself videotaped and photographed in the presence of Obama, along with hundreds, perhaps thousands of other folks wanting to be videotaped and photographed in the presence of the Senator with African roots from America.

But none of THAT constitutes “campaigning” for Odinga. All it reflects is that many prominent African folks, Odinga among them, managed to get themselves videotaped(without sound) and photographed in Obama’s presence. Nothing more.

We never HEAR Obama uttering one word in favor of Odinga or mentioning Odinga at all. For all we know Obama could have been reciting Shakespeare to those African crowds. And this constitutes “campaigning” for Odinga?

I suggest that you either give yourself a good “slap upside the head,” or you check the box for this blog and move on to your next assignment.

But I LIKE this “assignment.” Debunking phony stuff does my soul and sense of fairness a world of good.

As for the commentator’s suggestion to “move on,” I’m going to have to point out that he seems to be assuming authority that he does not possess. There’s only one person that can order anyone off this blog and it isn’t the commentator.

It seems to me that if even news sources favorable to Obama–like CNN–report he was in Kenya campaigning for Odinga then he was, actually, in Kenya campaigning for Odinga. and that pictures of them together at campaign rallies were actual, fully truthful, unmanipulated pictures of an actual event, rather than piced together and phony CGI manipulations.

I suggest that you either give yourself a good “slap upside the head,” or you check the box for this blog and move on to your next assignment.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.

A commentor offers the above post quoting an article about Obama and Odinga. So let’s examine the article.

This article could be the twin of an earlier article I fisked by Daniel Johnson. Notice readers, that they are both offered as opinion pieces and not as news.

They both start with long backgrounds on Odinga. The idea seems to be to establish that Odinga is a bad guy. I do not dispute such an evaluation.

We’ll skip over all the “Odinga is a bad guy” stuff and get to the real point of the piece – which is an alleged relationship between Obama and Odinga:

Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.

This first paragraph starts out weakly, talking about Obama’s “actions” and “local media reports.” These “actions” are not detailed nor are any “local media reports” cited. Let me state at the onset that I do not place much credibility in “local media reports” in Kenya, even if they WERE cited. I would want CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC or some other more reliable source before I’m going to be much impressed.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.

The writer says Odinga and Obama were “inseparable,” claims that the “two traveled together” and that Obama spoke on Odinga’s behalf.” But how does the writer KNOW this, apparently having not been there himself? Was it those mysterious un-cited “local media reports” mentioned in the first paragraph? It is usually the practice of good journalism to name sources.

I’ve learned over the years to be very suspicious of “facts” claimed by writers from unnamed or anonymous sources. My suspicion is that in many cases the writer is simply making up material out of his own head in order to make his points seem more credible.

“Kenyans are now yearning for change,” he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans – he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga.

It is customary when using quotes to attribute the source. Was the quoted material from a published text of Obama’s speech? Was it from one of the “local media reports” on the speech? Was it from a video from CNN? In order to fairly judge the veracity of these quotes, which are taken out of context, the reader must have access to the whole speech, the source. This the writer does not provide.

Also, the writer, with the “intent of Mr. Obama’s remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans – he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga” statement seems also to be able to read the minds of Kenyans. Mind reading: It’s such a fortunate ability to possess, eh?

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama had met several times before the 2006 trip. Reports indicate Mr. Odinga visited Mr. Obama during trips to the U.S. in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

But how can the reader know that these meetings actually took place? Was the writer present? Obviously, no. So who TOLD the writer about these meetings? The reader is left in the dark because the writer never bothers to clear up these little details. The writer just flatly states what seem to be “facts” without offering any source for the “facts.”

Mr. Obama sent his foreign policy adviser Mark Lippert to Kenya in early 2006 to coordinate his summer visit. Mr. Obama’s August trip coincided with strategizing by Orange Democratic Movement leaders to defeat Mr. Kibaki in the upcoming elections. Mr. Odinga represented the ODM ticket in the presidential race.

All the above says is that Obama went to Kenya. Oh, it cleverly tries to imply something more – but implication is not truth, dear readers.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama’s father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, “Barack Obama’s father is my maternal uncle.”

Here we go again. The writer spends half the article telling the reader what a cad Odinga is, just as Daniel Johnson did – and then blithely accepts Odinga’s word about a crucial point, just as Daniel Johnson did. But let’s pause a bit here and think about this “cousin” thing … let’s say it turns out that Odinga actually IS Obama’s cousin … so what?

You know, I’ve got a couple of relatives who aren’t prize citizens, either – am I supposed to condemn myself because these relatives are not upstanding members of the community? Should we condemn Obama because someone who may be a relative of his is a bad person? I think not.

President Kibaki requested a meeting of all opposition leaders in early January in an effort to quell the violence. All agreed to attend except Mr. Odinga. A month later, Mr. Kibaki offered Mr. Odinga the role of prime minister, the de facto No. 2 in the Kenyan government, in return for an end to the attacks. Mr. Odinga was sworn in on April 17, 2008.

There is nothing in the above with which I would argue. There is also nothing in the above about Obama.

Mr. Obama’s judgment is seriously called into question when he backs an official with troubling ties to Muslim extremists and whose supporters practice ethnic cleansing and genocide. It was Islamic extremists in Kenya who bombed the U.S. Embassy in 1998, killing more than 200 and injuring thousands. None of this has dissuaded Mr. Obama from maintaining disturbing loyalties.

And the above ends the article. Well, I think most of us would agree that Obama’s judgement and policies in foreign affairs stinks. But I haven’t seen any proof in this article that Obama “backs” Odinga. In other venues I’ve seen adequate proof that Obama backs Zelaya, that Obama seems willing to tolerate the Iranian despots, that Obama is unwilling to help the protesters in Iran, that Obama is deficient in many, many other ways. But “backing” Odinga? Nope, nothing yet.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/

The video is a bit over 8 minutes long. The first 6 minutes or so is about violence in Kenya with nothing about Obama. After this build-up the screen is captioned “Raila Odinga & Barack Obama,” with headshots of the two men edited to where they are side by side. A female voice with a British accent intones “… Odinga says they are cousins …” I notice that she doesn’t flatly state that Obama and Odinga are cousins, just “Odinga says …” Like I’ve said before: Odinga may be Obama’s cousin or he may not but I don’t believe we can put any credibility in what Odinga says or doesn’t say about that subject or anything else for that matter. As an evidence-giver Odinga is simply NOT credible.

A little further on there is a well-dressed man, seemingly an African, who is taped claiming that Obama is a “stooge.” We don’t know who this man is, we don’t know who the interviewer is, we don’t know which news organization, if any, that the interviewer works for … it’s just some unknown person making an accusation while being taped by some other unknown person. This is evidence?

Still later a well-dressed white man with white hair is shown claiming that Obama is “supporting Odinga.” Neither the man nor the interviewer is identified. There is some kind of symbol or logo that looks vaguely like the top corner of a folded newspaper that appears briefly but is almost totally obscured by the YouTube logo. This is evidence?

The commentor states that the sources of this video is: “UK’s Skynews CNN and statements from Human Rights Watch.” The only attribution I saw was CNN but that was only during general footage of violence in Kenya – never anywhere when Obama is the video’s subject. I saw no evidence that Skynews or the Human Rights Watch had anything to do with the video. This is evidence?

The only video “evidence” I’ve seen so far is that the two men, Obama and Odinga, have been photographed and soundlessly videotaped while in the presence of each other – that hardly constitutes Obama “campaigning” for Odinga. What I HAVE NOT seen is any videotape of Obama campaigning for Odinga.

I ask that the commentor stop offering these bogus videotapes as evidence. I have to sit through them 2 or 3 times, stopping the tape every once in awhile, write down what was said and make other notations, get the material in order and then post it.

I’ve spent a good 2 or 3 hours of my time on these stinkers and it’s getting to where it’s just not worth it. I request that the commentor view closely for veracity any tape he wants to offer. He ought to know by now, after reading two of my analyses, what constitutes believable video and what doesn’t and act accordingly.

The commentor is wrong. I do not like Obama and am ready to believe just about anything about the man as long as the accusation has some relation to reality.

There is ample evidence around about Obama which is real to know what he is – but I must have credible evidence for any individual accusation before I believe it.

Just call me a stickler for accuracy. I would feel the same about any public figure – Sarah Palin, John McCain – you name the figure – and I would demand something more than hearsay, speculation, out of context quotes, implication and all the rest of the methods commonly used to say something deleterious but untrue about someone.

The last bit of “evidence” I was given – the bogus news site calling itself the “API,” and the Daniel Johnson article which made one relevant statement and used the rest of the article to try unsuccessfully to justify that statement just did not meet the minimum standard for credibility. The rest was a bunch of material about the evilness of Odinga – which I readily accept but which is irrelevant.

I see that new stuff has been posted. I’ll look into it and get back with a comment. If it’s credible it will be acknowledged as such.

From The Washington Times
HYMAN: Obama’s Kenya ghosts
By Mark Hyman | Sunday, October 12, 2008

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama’s six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. “The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials,” Mr. Obama announced.