Ex-communist nations expose Obama 'fraud'

Then, it was The Voice of Russia – successor of Radio Moscow, the official station of the Soviet Union.

And now it’s the Czech Republic’s Neviditelný pes (The Invisible Dog), a popular news website from Prague, that’s sounding the alarm.

Remember the old parable about the frog and the crocodile?

Russia was in the news quite a bit this week. Not in a good way.

If our goal as “birthers” is to get other conservative media or politicians to sign on to the eligibility issue—do we think they’d voluntarily sign on to the same team as Pravda? Is this good PR for an already extremely touchy subject? I don’t think so.

Are articles on Pravda trying to shame them into paying attention or the mainstream media into covering it? Again—really? Seems to me this will only make ridicule against the “birthers” worse. Pravda used to be the propaganda arm of the communist USSR, and many attest that it is still operated by the same regime. It is like the Globe or the National Enquirer—only worse because it’s the Russian version, and most Americans do not consider Russia a great ally.

We’ve just had some important players sign up—Monckton, Kimball, West, to name a few. That was great news and we’re starting to build up steam, slowly, and carefully among some highly respected individuals. We don’t need Pravda or WND’s sensationalizing of it.

Personally, I wouldn’t want my name on a list that includes Pravda. And especially not as a columnist on Pravda. If Pravda would have covered the story with its own reporters, that would be one thing. But that’s not what’s going on here, or is it? Is this just a “birther” looking for fame and glory, or a misguided but well-meaning one who didn’t think things through very well, or perhaps does the author really work for Pravda?

The first Pravda article had many thinking it was written in Russian first, then translated, which accounted for some of its factual errors and awkward prose. Seriously. I had many people tell me that, and that they did not notice the authorship until I pointed it out. Was that intentional—by the author or Pravda’s editing? This time, WND noted the real author and so have others, and not in a good way. And a comment was posted at WND, something like “look who you’re in bed with now, birthers.” If the author was not an American birther, we could write off comments like that. But she is a well-known birther, though, isn’t she?

I see lots of comments on FR in support of Danae’s articles on Pravda. Not from me. I don’t want to be in bed with Pravda. I suspect many here don’t either, but since Danae has built up trust, they’ve gone along without thinking it through.

Time to get out of bed and off the crocodile’s back. We have fought long and hard on this issue. I think I speak for many others who do not want Pravda on our team. There are other, more intelligent ways to fight this battle.

….If Obama’s eligibility issue is the frog, putting articles about it on Pravda is like taking a ride on the crocodile’s back.

Unless the frog, or its author, is really just another crocodile…

"communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero."-- [Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn at the Commencement, 8 June 1978, Harvard University]

Based on this comment alone I would be very weary of anything else this person (Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn) says.

ie, "In a [] 1984 book [New Lies for Old], ex-KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn predicted the liberalization of the Soviet Bloc and claimed that it would be a strategic deception. ..."

"Golitsyn's argument was that beginning in about 1960, the Soviet Union embarked on a strategy of massive long-range strategic deception which would span several decades and result in the destruction of Western capitalism and the erection of a communist world government."

"Golitsyn published his second book, The Perestroika Deception, after the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991. This book contained further analysis of the liberalization, in addition to previously classified memoranda submitted by Golitsyn to the CIA. The two books must be read together to get a complete picture of Golitsyn's thesis."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/did_communism_fake_its_own_dea.html

“Mr. Obama was talking with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when neither of them realized that their conversation was being picked up by microphones. Here is what they said:

Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it’s important for him to give me space.”

Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you ...”

Obama: “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.”

Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

“This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” That statement tells us much about the president’s mindset.

The specific mention of missile defense is worrisome enough. Mr. Obama has retreated from the missile defense plan that was negotiated with European allies during the George W. Bush administration. Apparently, he is signaling Moscow that he intends to retreat further. The clear implication from the president’s comments is that he cannot tell the American people before the election what he plans to do after the election.

In addition, there is the phrase “on all these issues,” implying more is at stake than just missile defense.”

Article: Obama plans double cross on missile defense
When it comes to keeping America safe, we shouldn’t be too flexible:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/29/obama-plans-double-cross-on-missile-defense/print/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.