JediKnight wrote:
If you even knew what the word "honesty" meant you take the name Obama out of your post and substitute "trump" then you would have something worth discussing.
Really?
Try this one on for size!
Obama’s F**e SS#
The ‘F**e News’ Con: A Case Study
\
http://lewrockwell.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6ad24f4cd1574f1f7b8a0a03a&id=6b871b26bc&e=ac767b1a94 The media have found a creative new way to explain away Hillary’s Clinton’s crushing defeat and their own humiliation. They have dubbed the agent of their mutual undoing “f**e news” and talk about the phenomenon as though it made real sense.
In an all too typical New York Times opinion piece this week Michael Lynch defines “f**e news” as “pure fiction masquerading as t***h” and presents it exclusively as a “right wing” phenomenon. Like many of his colleagues, Lynch suggests the Russian government was involved in planting f**e news items and believes that such items, regardless of source, may have cost Hillary Clinton the e******n.
To test Lynch’s thesis, we might profitably select a presumed “f**e news” item and follow its course through what the Clintons once called the “communication stream of conspiracy commerce.” In August 2010, the Times identified a news item simple enough and seemingly f**e enough, “Obama uses a phony Social Security number,” to makes a useful case study.
Tracking this story, one finds its source not in Russia, but in Ohio. The person responsible for surfacing the number is a licensed private investigator named Susan Daniel. In 2009, troubled by the drift of the country under Barack Obama, she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey began to plow through proprietary databases and investigate Obama on their own time. What they discovered is that from 1986 on Barack Obama has been using a Social Security number that seemed to originate in Connecticut.
In the August 2010 article — “In Defining Obama, Misperceptions Stick” — the Times led with the SSN accusation not to explore it but to dismiss it. They simply presumed this question, like more involved questions about Obama’s faith or family origins, to be “misperceptions” unworthy of exploration.
*****The major media leave the dirty work of debunking to fact-checking sites, most notoriously Snopes.com. In an analysis that has been updated through 2016, Snopes leads with this accusation, “Barack Obama appropriated the Social Security number of a dead man born in 1890 and used it as his own.” In large red letters, Snopes rejects the accusation as “FALSE.” *****