The jig is up the news is out, they’ve finally found me
The renegade who had it made retrieved for a bounty
Never more to go astray
This will be the end today… of the wanted man.
In every lie there is a kernel of truth. There has to be for it to be believable.
I see it all the time in interviewing people, not everybody does it, but there are those who don’t feel that their real experiences or education are good enough and they “shade” the truth to favor their position. The good ones can do it so that it is indistinguishable from reality – no engineer is going to say that they were in the astronaut program at NASA – unless they were – because that is too easy to verify – but they might say that they were a lead engineer on the design of a sub-system for the space shuttle program when they were just a technician or a gopher, but that statement that expresses some degree of expertise in critical systems and is one hell of a lot less likely to draw enough attention to be verified. The lie has to be at least plausible or it is rejected out of hand. A subtle lie can pass for the truth.
But there are also cases of the “big lie”, things that are just too good to check. Politicians and other public figures are especially susceptible to burnishing of their records this way – for example, to claim to be a Cherokee, to lie about military service, to claim credit for tangentially being involved in legislation (voting present). Still, these are lies that count on being believable – these are famous and “important” people, why would they lie – or just obscure enough to pass muster (i.e. serving in Vietnam 45 years ago)?
There is a name for these actions – they are confidence games. Con jobs exploit typical human characteristics such as greed, dishonesty, vanity, honesty, compassion, credulity, irresponsibility, desperation, naïveté or a thirst for power or position. There is the common factor in every good con – to identify a potential mark (the victim) such that only that the victim relies on the good faith of the con artist. Victims of these scams tend to show an incautious level of greed and gullibility. Many con artists target the elderly, but even alert and educated people may be taken in by other forms of a con.
Con artists often have accomplices, known as “shills” to help manipulate the mark into accepting the con man’s plan. In a traditional confidence trick, the mark is led to believe that he will be able to win money or some other prize by doing some task. The accomplices may pretend to be strangers who have benefited from performing the task in the past.
Marks aren’t always weak or stupid; they might actually recognize the con and attempt to out-cheat the con artist, only to discover that they have been manipulated into losing from the very beginning. The hallmark of most successful con artists is their pathological ability to lie and to create elaborate and detailed persona to support the con, to make it so believable to the mark that they simply can’t resist buying in and no matter how elaborate the story, there is no version of the story where the con artist doesn’t come out on top.
I have had the misfortune to have personally known such a person. This person was not a criminal in the sense that they sought to do illegal things, they were just so selfish and self-absorbed that the only thing that mattered was self-preservation and realization of their own personal success at any cost. There was no lie that they wouldn’t tell, no construct that they couldn’t conceive in support of getting with they wanted – no matter who it hurt. This individual was so good a creating alternate realities and convincing others that they were real that I often wondered if they actually inhabited their own fantasy world.
Speaking of con artists, there are many people writing about Obama’s apparent self-identification for 16 years as a native born Kenyan, or at the very least, allowing a “fact checking” mistake to stand. Mark Steyn takes the President to task by saying:
It used to be a lot simpler. As E.C. Bentley deftly summarized it in 1905:
“Geography is about maps, but Biography is about chaps.”
But that was then, and now Biography is also about maps. For example, have you ever thought it would be way cooler to have been born in colonial Kenya?
Whoa, that sounds like crazy Birther talk; don’t go there! But Breitbart News did, and it turns out that the earliest recorded example of Birtherism is from the president’s own literary agent, way back in 1991, in the official bio of her exciting new author:
“Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”
So the lunatic theory that Barack Obama doesn’t meet the minimum eligibility requirements to be president of the United States was first advanced by Barack Obama’s official representative. Where did she get that wacky idea from? “This was nothing more than a fact-checking error by me,” says Obama’s literary agent, Miriam Goderich, a “fact” that went so un-“checked” that it stayed up on her agency’s website in the official biography of her by-then-famous client up until 2007:
“He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister.”
And then in April 2007, someone belatedly decided to “check” the 16-year-old “fact” and revised the biography, a few weeks into the now non-Kenyan’s campaign for the presidency. Fancy that!
When one considers the totality of what we do know about Obama’s history, including his flirtation with the leftist fringe in college, a pattern begins to form.
That association is here – documented in his own words:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”
In light of his courtship of the communist New Party in Chicago as part of building his political base, his lifelong associations with leftist pastors Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger and James Meeks, his friendship and political alliance with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dhorn, his tutelage at the knee of Frank Marshall Davis, the endorsement of his policies by the Communist Party USA and other global Marxists and socialists (i.e. France’s Francois Hollande), we can understand that these are all radical associations that people outside a very specific subset of American political thought would accept in a candidate. Obama’s a background is more indicative of a socialist like Bernie Sanders than a pragmatic “progressive” like Bill Clinton.
There is actually a mountain of evidence in the public sphere that Obama is not who he claims to be. Stanley Kurtz was on this back in September of 2009 when he wrote a column titled Obama’s Radical-Left Ties Broad And Deep:
Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can Barack Obama escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama’s connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks.
Obama shared Wright’s rejection of black “assimilation.” Obama also shared Wright’s suspicion of the traditional American ethos of individual self-improvement and the pursuit of “middle-classness.” In common with Wright, Obama had deep misgivings about America’s criminal justice system. And with the exception of their direct attacks on whites, Obama largely approved of his preacher-friends’ fiery rhetoric. Obama’s goal was not to repudiate religious radicalism but to channel its fervor into an effective and permanent activist organization. How do we know all this? We know it because Obama himself has told us.
A preponderance of evidence is in plain sight that Obama is not who he says he is. This compendium of evidence gives new insight to this quote of his from the prologue to the second of his autobiographies, “The Audacity of Hope,” he said:
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
During the campaign, it is apparent that most people, including myself, took this to mean that he was the instrument by which others could see their political agendas implemented; however, given all we know thanks to people like Andrew Breitbart, Stanley Kurtz, Glenn Beck and Edward Klein, this statement reveals a deeper truth.
One of the tools of the successful con artist is that they are masters at revealing just enough truth about themselves to gain credibility and eventually your trust; they display a little vulnerability to solidify that trust. Often parenthetically or cryptically offered, these little statements, while true, are often duplicitous or multiplicitious in interpretation, carrying different meanings for the con artist, the shills and the mark depending on the context.
That is why I think the seemingly innocuous author’s bio (that ran for 16 years) is so devastating to Obama. Far from validating that he was actually born in Kenya, it is the key to unlocking the grand con that has been perpetrated on the American people since Barack Obama landed on the shores of the continental United States from Hawaii.
Rather than validating a Kenyan birth, what this reveals about Obama is that he develops whatever persona that is required to further his goals and just like any good con artist, the only goals he has are those directly related to his own personal success. In this context, the aforementioned quote is more accurately produced as:
I will be whomever I need to be, assume whatever ideology I need to assume and use whomever I can to achieve my quest for power and personal aggrandizement.
Why is it that there are no people coming forward from Obama’s past to speak about those thrilling days of yesteryear in the drum circle at Occidental College? Why are all of Obama’s university and law school records still sealed, under embargo or under lock and key? Are these not items that a nationally elected official, arguably THE most important nationally elected official, would consider matters of public interest? How is it that reporters at the New York Times can investigate and expose top secret NSA programs, as Eric Lichtblau and James Risen did, yet not find one scintilla of information on Obama’s background? Why is it that, by Obama’s own admission, that he created a “composite” girlfriend in his book?
There are those who see a grand conspiracy, a one world government at work here but to believe this would mean that the fix would have to have been in place before Obama was born. Obama and his family were private citizens and private citizens leave footprints that cannot be erased. For me, a conspiracy this extensive is simply not plausible. People talk and the greater the numbers of people involved, the greater the chance that somebody, at some point, lets the proverbial cat out of the bag.
It is far more plausible that Obama has conned his way through life and like a chameleon, changed his colors to match his objectives at each stage of his life. Obama’s quote now comes into focus. While many of us see him for what he is, the reason that we don’t see people coming forward is that he retains just enough of the persona that he used in the varying stages of his life that the people who knew him as a Marxist at Occidental still see him as a Marxist, the people who saw him as a conventional law student at Harvard Law still do, the people who saw him as a radical community organizer in Chicago still see him as a radical, the people who saw him as a black nationalist in Jeremiah Wright’s pews still see him that way, the media still sees him as the trendy, transformational candidate he never really was and the electorate at large that supported him in 2008 still sees the moderate black Senator that they voted for.
He is all things to all people.
That is what the author’s bio says to me. It simply is not believable that a man as narcissistic as Obama did not know that this was out there for 16 years – someone did – because it got corrected in 2007. To successfully manage a con, the perpetrator has to know every bit of information, he must control every iota of the action, or the con falls apart.
And it will fall apart…all cons do, just ask Bernie Madoff.
All cons do fall apart but even after they are recognized, they often keep running due to two things: 1) many are prolonged by the embarrassment of the mark and their inability to acknowledge that they have been conned or 2) after they realize that they have been taken, the marks want to keep the con going long enough to pass it on to someone else and hopefully get their money and pride back in the transfer. Neither ever works because the game is rigged before it starts. Admitting that you have been a fool is a very tough thing for many to do, especially if they hold positions of authority, are of advanced academic standing or are of high social status – coincidentally, a large number of Obama’s most influential supporters fit in one or more of these categories.
The only reason that Obama’s grand con is still going is that the marks can’t afford to admit that the jig is up. They have invested too much financial, political and personal capital to let the game end. In a post from April of 2011 (that also was published as a column) titled “The Hole Card”, I wrote:
The fellow travelers in government and useful idiots in media won’t let him fail – they went “all in” on what they thought was a “bulletproof” candidate – one with no publicly discernible history that could cause him difficulty, a bi-racial man raised in a multi-racial international community, tutored in an affirmative action/progressive/elite educational atmosphere, a Harvard educated lawyer who eschewed corporate America to integrate into the American black community that he never was part of until it became a political prerogative, a selfless, caring “community organizer” of ambiguous religious heritage and beliefs who turned into a selfish and ruthless politician, a half-white black man married to a black professional woman with two black children. He was an apologist for the strong America that the Left is embarrassed by. To the delight of the left leaning media he had a compelling backstory that evolved into a cult following based on white guilt, a cult following that produced messianic imagery from its members. A candidate, that no matter what he did, had the advantage of playing race as a trump card as many times as he needed to avoid criticism…
He was the perfect vessel for every left of center political power broker, as a friend from over at PoliPundit, RightWingYahoo, would say – a veritable GDLC (God Damned Lying Communist) wet dream.
In him alone rested the hope for changing the American system to a socialist/big government paradise once and for all. After all, he was perfect, untouchable, unassailable – political god made man.They thought that he had the communication skills and likeability of Ronald Reagan, the political ability of Clinton and the ideology of Walter Mondale – he was more than perfect, as Chris Matthews would say, he was “pluperfect”. His political DNA was the primordial soup from which a socialist Utopia could evolve. If they could anchor him as a starting point, the next candidate could be even father to the left.
His protectors are legion. They are from all classes because he represents something different to each of them. In the prologue to the second of his autobiographies, “The Audacity of Hope,” he said:
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
They are willing to cover for him because he is black, he is a liberal, he is a lawyer, a community organizer, an elitist, an academic, a leftist politician, a supporter of feminism/abortion, and he is a product of the welfare state and affirmative action. He has tentacles reaching into every bastion of liberal thought. His supporters and defenders look at him and see themselves – every attack on Obama is a personal attack on them, every criticism is a personal affront.
That is still as true today as it was when it was originally written. I still stand behind the post’s dénouement:
What they didn’t count on was his immaturity of leadership, his indecision and his incompetence. They rushed the incubation of the embryonic Liberal Superman by a few years and birthed him too early. His political gestation was not complete, so instead of a Teflon-coated Liberal SuperReagan stepping forth fully formed from the womb, they got a incomplete, underdeveloped and inexperienced version of Jimmy Carter.
Why will they protect him in light of what is obvious to rational Americans?
Because all the chips are riding on him – they went all-in hoping to draw to a royal flush, the unbeatable hand. He was the hole card, the ace of spades (no pun intended, spades is generally recognized as the highest suit and the ace completes the A-K-Q-J-10 royal flush). If Obama is recognized as a failure, all that he represents – socialism, big government, social programs, Keynesian economics, welfare, destruction of corporations, redistribution of wealth, elitist academia, what is left of media credibility and above all, liberalism, all go down with him.
The jig is up, the news is out…