Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception

Barack Obama the man is more of a mystery to Americans than any president in modern history, thanks to suppressed documents and unexplained gaps in his personal and intellectual life. Now a new documentary seeks to answer the question, “Was the multicultural tale of Obama’s goat-herding Kenyan father only a fairy tale to obscure a Marxist agenda irreconcilable with American values?”

Based on two years of research, interviews, newly unearthed footage and photos, and the writings of Communist Party organizer and propagandist Frank Marshall Davis, Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception is an alternate theory to Obama’s autobiography. The 95-minute video from Highway 61 Entertainment weaves together the facts with re-creations and “reasoned speculation” in an effort to solve the mystery of Obama’s origin. As director/writer/producer Joel Gilbert puts it, the conclusion is that “the ‘Birthers’ have been on a fool’s errand. To understand Obama’s plans for America, the question is not ‘Where’s the birth certificate,’ but ‘Who’s the real father?’”

The film makes the case that Davis is Obama’s real father, both biologically and ideologically, and that he indoctrinated Obama during the latter’s formative years with a political grounding in Marxism and an anti-white world view. It asserts, as Gilbert says in an interview, that Obama’s election “was the culmination of an American socialist movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media for decades.”

Dreams from My Real Father is narrated over meandering violin-and-piano music by Obama impersonator and voiceover actor Ed Law, who chronicles the president’s life journey from birth to the present as if Obama himself is speaking. Some dialogue is taken directly from Davis and Obama’s writings, while some is “approximated.”

The documentary includes Obama’s indoctrination in Marxism by Davis, his college years, his work as a Saul Alinsky-style community organizer, his close association with the Bill Ayers family and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, even his little-known role in the subprime mortgage crisis, all the way through his campaigns and into the presidency. “My mission in life,” says the Obama narrator, “is to fulfill the dreams of my ‘ideological father’ – to replace capitalism with Communism.”

The film begins with a comparison of the startling physical similarities between Obama and Frank Marshall Davis: facial features, stature and build, even their voices and laughs. It moves on to a description of Davis’ involvement with the Communist Party of the USA, which was founded in Chicago. The CPUSA targeted useful American journalists like Davis, who was deeply involved an astounding number of Communist front groups and wrote for all their publications. He was assigned to recruit blacks into the party – the goal was to target them, rub salt in their wounds, stir up class resentment, and mobilize their discontent to take power. In addition to being a poet and propagandist, Davis started a camera club and specialized in nude photography.

Enter Obama’s “Gramps,” grandfather Stanley Dunham on his mother Ann’s side, who was a “company man” for the CIA, tasked with recruiting black students against Communism. One of those students was Obama’s purported father, Barack Hussein Obama, who arrived from Kenya and was greeted by Gramps himself. The Dunhams later moved to Hawaii, where a very unhappy Ann began hanging out with poet/photographer Davis, who had moved there to recruit blacks for the CPUSA. He ultimately got her to pose nude for him – and eventually, according to the documentary, also got her pregnant.

After his initial shock and anger over the illicit affair, Stanley Dunham realized he would lose his CIA security clearance if it was discovered that his daughter was pregnant by Communist Davis. Abortion, illegal in Hawaii, wasn’t an option. Dunham decided to carry out an elaborate deception. He needed a black man to marry Ann and legitimize the birth, so he turned to Kenyan student Obama, who needed the money. But Obama was already a married man and father, so he agreed to go along with the plan only if the birth certificate stated “Father unknown.”

Months later Ann was granted an uncontested divorce, married Indonesian Barry Soetero and moved to Jakarta. Young Barry grew up there, eventually was told the truth about his real father, and spent some time with “Uncle Frank” Davis in Hawaii during his formative years. By the time Obama went to Occidental College on a full affirmative-action scholarship, he was already a committed Marxist.

Going to school later in Chicago, Obama was influenced by professors like Richard Cloward with his “crisis strategy” of economic sabotage to collapse capitalism. He met terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who realized Obama’s value to their movement, and learned the strategies of “community organization” – or more precisely, “community agitation.”

Thanks to his connections, Ayers’ wealthy father Thomas and black nationalist patron Khalid al-Mansour, Obama was accepted at Harvard Law School and became president of the Harvard Law Review without actually having written a single law review. He moved on to become a training director for the Alinskyite group ACORN.

The documentary goes on to detail Obama’s political life, his involvement with Project Vote and the subprime mortgage crisis, his shady backing from slumlord patron Tony Rezko, and his support from another red-diaper baby, David Axelrod, who ultimately helped him shape his presidential campaign message. Once in office, Obama began carrying out the socialist blueprint – centralizing power in the government

When asked in an interview why it matters who Barak Obama’s father really is, filmmaker Joel Gilbert replied,

Obama sold himself to America as the multi-cultural ideal, a man who stood above politics. His father was a goat herder from Kenya, he would bring people together, so it went… [P]romoting a false family background to hide an agenda irreconcilable with American values is a totally unacceptable manipulation of the electorate.

The closing image of the film is a waving Communist flag, suggesting that Obama’s agenda – to make America socialist without ever realizing how it happened – is flourishing. “These are my dreams,” the Obama impersonator finishes, “the dreams from my real father.”

For more information on Dreams from My Real Father, click here.

  • mlcblog

    This rings true, especially about being placed on the Harvard Law Review. I watched in the 1960's as leftist radical organizer types placed person after person into key positions who had NO qualifications whatsoever. How they got away with it? because they could. No one was paying attention. There was no oversight. They were appointed positions mostly, and it had just never occurred to anyone that someone would be so dishonorable as to fill one of these type of slots with such disrespect.

  • ellen

    Have you noticed how much MItt Romney looks like Harpo Marx? MItt's real father being Harpo Marx is as likely as this speculation.

    • Sandy Edwards

      Ellen. Do your research! Who knows who Obama's "real" father is. But his connection to and influence by Davis is fact. The nude pic of his mother taken by Davis is fact. If you think it is not a possibility – young attractive woman posing nude for a photographer – maybe your head is in the sand.

    • gfmucci

      Ellen. Funny, but ill informed. You bring up a really good point, though. And that is Romneys history, parentage, education, etc. are all precisely very well known and documented. Obama's history, on the other hand, has enough holes in it that I'm amazed he isn't Swiss cheese. Why are you surprised there is so much speculation about Obama's past? He hasn't allowed anything to be released except demonstrably forged documents.

      • ellen

        Romney's "real father" is exactly as well known as Obama's real father. The contrast is that Obama has shown vastly more information about his place of birth than Romney did. Obama has shown the short form and long form birth certificates of Hawaii. Romney has shown only an image of a photocopy of the short form birth certificate of Michigan—which does not even show the name of the hospital or the name of the doctor (both of which we know in Obama's case). Obama's birth certificate has been confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. Romney's has not been confirmed at all. Obama's birth certificate has been confirmed by the Index Data file in Hawaii. Romney's has not been confirmed at all. Obama's birth certificate has been confirmed by the birth notices in the Hawaii newspapers in 1961, that at the time were sent to the papers by the DOH of Hawaii. Romney's has not been confirmed at all.

        BTW, has any birther site shown you this?

        Romney's has not been confirmed at all.

        • gfmucci

          You are ignoring the "forgery" and "fail to release" part of Obama's nebulous history.

          • ellen

            You are believing the claims of birther "experts"–who have not shown that they are real experts and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial. The reason that the National Review and Ann Coulter and the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona (who accepted the confirmation of Hawaii and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in November, is that they do not believe these claims.

          • gfmucci

            There are many things worthy of concern that many people have just "given up" on. Lack of concerned focus does not make the problem go away.

          • ellen

            They haven't "given up." They do not believe it. Ann Coulter calls birthers "crazy." So does the National Review. If there were a shred of believable evidence someone in Congress would have called for an investigation. Not one of the 535 members did.

    • Larry

      yes, yes I love it. Anyone that believes this garbage put out by Joel Glilbert needs so assistance It's just more of the repblican hate machine

    • Mercedes

      I can't believe there are actual adults who could ever believe this bunch of lies. Unless Gilbert has spent years knowing and being with President Obama, he has NO proof to back up this fairy tale he's trying to sell.
      I don't believe that the Democratic National Committee did not fully VET President Obama before choosing him as their nominee in 2008. To spend hundreds of millions of dollars against Hillary Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, just so this 'mystery' man could be elected President? I don't think so.
      The members of the Republican Tea Party either have too much time on their hands, so they have come up with these 'conspiracy theories' or they HATE our President so much that they think the rest of us agree with them and will elect Willard Romney, who is the most complex, enigmatic candidate I've ever seen. I can't figure out what policies he's for or against, because he seems to change his beliefs from one day to the next; from one crowd to the next. I'll stick with President Obama.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    It is not the "Birthers" have been on a fool's errand. It is the author, who is keeping the mission of obfuscation and disinformation conducted by the Front Page Mag since day one in 2008.

    1) Since 2008 and on "Birthers" have never been only on the "mystery of the real birth" of the impostor, but rather on the officially acknowledged version of it. No matter who were Obama's REAL parents: According to the official declaration, both the biological and the adopting fathers (Obama and Soetoro) were not American citizens, and Obama as a teenager was raised as an Indonesian citizen. This comprises the double violation, which completely disqualifies him to be considered the US natural born citizen – based at least on the most recent definition applied in the Senate Res 511, 2008 on McCain.

    2) It does not matter why Obama and his handlers instructed him to follow the legend which betrays his illegitimacy from the very beginning. Yet as soon as he uttered it, the law abiding nation ought to immediately stop his campaign and election. Similarly, if a person says to police that he committed a murder (true of false), first he is arrested and prosecuted, rather than allowed to walk away.

    3) And yes, in 2008 the official legend of Obama's birth had never been proved by any judicially admissible birth certificate, so "birthers" had all the reasons to demand production of it. That was in 2008.

    4) Now it was proven by Sheriff Arpaio and by the experts of Dr. Orly Taitz during the GA trial, that the April 2011 copy of the White House birth certificate was a coarse forgery, that Obama's Connecticut SS number is faked and had been never assigned to him, that this person is fraud and identity thief.

    5) And in this disgusting and shameful time for America, somebody gets an order to repair a bit the too compromised personality of the thief in the White House by means of ascribing to him now both American parents… This video is not the only such attempt. The other work tries to prove facial similarities of Obama with Malcolm X and his daughter… The stupidity and cynicisms of these efforts now – particularly now! – are mind boggling…

    Obama and his handlers have perpetrated the most elaborate hoax in U.S. history! A former beacon of democracy and legality in the world, America is incapable even to break a taboo on this unprecedented crime during four disgraceful years! America has fallen lower than any nation in the modern time.

    Impostor Obama/Soetoro must be immediately arrested and prosecuted together with all his handlers and collaborators!

  • Greg Williams

    Alexander, we vote him out, then build the case, try him for treason and strip him of his ill- begotten assets and his pension and tbrow him in prison.

    • Spider

      Amen Brother!

    • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

      Mr. Grag Williams,

      Civilized nations and civilized citizens do not "vote out" criminals, but arrest and prosecute them immediately!

      It is an illusion spread by the parties as though you can vote out the impostor covered up by all branches of the illegal government and all its institutions!.. Their goal is opposite to your dreams: They are set on swiping the treason under the rug forever, and "to go ahead having more important things to do".

      1) Here is no party, no opponent sincerely wishing to defeat the opponent! They are all set so that the opponent win (including the voting machines owned by foreign nations).

      2) By your mere participation in the illegal election you approve of this election and give it legitimacy.

      3) Your comment means also an approval of the disgusting role of Front Page Mag, covering up for and maintaining taboo on the truth during all 4 years! This agency has betrayed its journalistic duties by not reporting even on the press conferences given by Sheriff Arpaio, when even the rot alphabetic channels showed up. Shame on you Front Page Mag!

    • fiddler

      And recind his executive orders.

  • Bot

    When will some mainstream media (even Fox News or The Blaze) report this travesty?

    • Spider

      Never – They have all become propogandists of the highest order for the government machine that is grinding America and its people to a pulp.

  • Spider

    Obama spent 1.3 million dollars in legal fees to hide his birth certificate and millions more to hide his college records.
    All documents pertaining to his college days are hidden – not just his transcripts, Why? Only one reason makes sense. They are incredibly incriminating. Here are some possibilities:
    1) He received poor grades – which means many better qualified whites were passed over for his seat in college.
    2) Papers he wrote were promoting com-munism Mar-xism and violent revolution to take over the US
    3) Papers he wrote were promoting black supremacy or racist rants like Jerimia Wright
    4) He was involved in a homo affair with a college professor
    5) He as involved with CPUSA or some other nefarious group.
    6) He as registered as a foreign exchange student from Kenya to get the benefits – which means he committed fraud.

    Someone somewhere has Have seen these documents – they need to come foreward.

    • trickyblain

      Can you show us some of W Bush's college papers? Reagan's? Romney's? Ryan's?

      Since you cannot, your list contains "possibilities" that apply to them as well, right?

      • Spider

        I don't know about the others you mentioned however Bush released his Transcripts, Tax returns, Long form Birth Certificate, selective service records, and military records. Obama has hidden everything but his tax returns.

        • trickyblain

          You're right about W's college transcript (which was about to be leaked, anyway). He was a C student. Since Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude, he had to be a pretty good student. Also correct about his military records (though, for the left, the issue on that one was not unlike the birthers who can't accept reality).

          Wrong about Bush's birth certificate. He — and no other man elected president in US history save Obama — has publicly released any form of birth certificate.

        • ellen

          Bush did not release his transcripts; they were leaked by a source at Yale, but Bush did not release them. Neither did McCain show his or Clinton or Reagan or any president or presidential candidate, and Romney has not shown his transcripts.

          Romney has shown an image of a photocopy of his short form birth certificate. Obama has shown both the images and the physical copies (with the seal on the back, where it is supposed to be) of his short form AND long form birth certificate, and the facts on them were confirmed by the officials in Hawaii of both parties.

          Bush, Clinton, Bush41, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon and all the others DID NOT SHOW THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATES AT ALL.

          As you point out, both Bush and Obama showed eight years and ten years of tax returns. Romney has shown only one and says that he will show only two.

      • fiddler

        Were they sealed???

        • ellen

          No, neither Obama's nor any president's transcripts or other private papers are "sealed." They are all simply private and protected by privacy laws, as are those of Mitt Romney.

    • shootingstar

      And why aren't they? Surely there has to be SOME unafraid, honest, investigative citizen journalist…someone who can unseal the documents (if they haven't been destroyed, and I fear they have long ago), or past associates willing to come forth.

      • Spider

        I don't know why they haven't come foreward. Maybe some of Obummers union thugs payed them a visit and made them an offer they couldn't refuse. Actually one of Obummers Columbia class mates did come foreward: he said that Obummer hardly ever attended class. He probably got his degree for doing nothing (just like his Nobel prize). Obummers class mate also said that this all seems fishy to him but he didn't have specifics about his grades etc.

      • ellen

        A journalist MIGHT be able to get the documents from a source, but then a journalist could get Mitt Romney's papers too. And, ever since Yale leaked Bush's grades, colleges and universities have been tightening up their security on the matter. It is, after all, illegal to release that information under existing state and federal privacy laws.

    • Mercedes


      Speaking of what the truth really is:

      What I would like to see are figures and facts of how many US jobs Willard Romney has actually created, as opposed to how many US jobs he was invested in that were sent overseas.

      I would also like to know how he is going to create 12 million US jobs in 4 years, besides saying the the same 'song and dance' of tax cuts for the job creators and deregulation of every business in America.

  • Jerry

    Our greatest concern should not be who Obama's father is, but his close relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. Once again I suggest everyone read John Daniels book, a''THE COMING; A TRUE STORY OF HORROR' @ AMAZON.COM. though written as a work of fiction he nevertheless offers some undeniable facts as to the true nature not only of Islam, but Obama's role in the destruction of America.

    • Mercedes


      I venture to say that you must subscribe to the ideas of Dr. Jack Van Impe and his wife Rexella.
      I do hope the IRS is investigating their peddling an audio and transcript describing how President Obama has 'shortchanged' America.
      Supposedly being religious individuals and claiming tax exempt status while plunging into US Politics is illegal and they may lose their tax exempt status.

      I wonder what your fellow Muslims think of you; that you would believe 'a work of fiction' is the truth. Why don't you use a Christian teaching and learn to 'Love your so-called enemies–Muslims' one by one instead of grouping them together as one bunch of radicals?

  • ellen

    Obama's birth in Hawaii has been proven overwhelmingly. Romney has shown only an image of a photocopy of his short form birth certificate (which does not even show the name of the hospital). Bush showed nothing. Clinton showed nothing. No president has ever shown his birth certificate before Obama.

    Obama showed both his short-form and long form birth certificates from Hawaii; he showed both images of them and the actual physical copies (with the seal on the back, where it is supposed to be) to the press. The facts on Obama's birth certificate—that he was born in Hawaii in 1961—have been repeatedly confirmed by the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii, and the most recent of these confirmations was accepted as evidence by the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona, who ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in November, as he will be in all the other states too, of course.

    In addition to the confirmation by the officials in Hawaii, Obama's having a birth certificate from Hawaii is also confirmed by the Index Data, and his birth in Hawaii is also confirmed by the birth notices that were sent to the newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii, and ONLY by the DOH of Hawaii since the section of the newspapers was called "Health Bureau Statistics." And at the time the DOH only sent out those notices for births IN Hawaii.

    Obama's birth in Hawaii is sufficient to make him a Natural Born US citizen due to the fact that Natural Born refers to the place of birth, not the parents.

    “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

    The tale that Obama was registered as a foreign exchange student was originally an April fool's article first posted on Airl 1, 2009. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.


      You have been drinking too much kool-aid

    • fiddler

      And what about the recent proof that the certificate was a forgery? What about the social security number? Hawaii routinely provides birth certificates to mere residents, whether born there or not.

      • ellen

        The "proof" is the claims of birther "experts:" who have not shown that they are really experts, and who certainly have not shown that they are fair and impartial. Recently the CONSERVATIVE secretary of state of Arizona, after listening to Sheriff Joe's "evidence" and receiving confirmation from the officials in Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii, ruled that Obama is eligible and will be on the ballot in Arizona in November, as he will be in all the other states too, of course.

        What about the Social Security number? Did no one every tell you that millions upon millions of people have errors in their Social Security files?

        The Connecticut SS number was caused by a data entry error. SS numbers were generated by the zip code of the applicant’s address. Obama’s address in Hawaii was in zip code 96814, and the zip code for Danbury, CT. is 06814.

        Here is evidence that millions of people have errors and multiple social security numbers, caused mainly by data entry errors:

      • ellen

        Re: " Hawaii routinely provides birth certificates to mere residents, whether born there or not. "

        Actually, that law was not enacted until 1982, more than twenty years after Obama was born. In 1961, Hawaii would only issue birth certificates to people who had proof that they were born in Hawaii. I repeat PROOF. If a child was born in a hospital with a doctor's signature, as Obama was, in Kapiolani, that was proof. If born outside of a hospital, Hawaii required signed witness statements.

        BTW, have any birther sites shown you this?

    • fiddler

      You are trying to make him out to be a poor victim. But you HAVE to agree that sealing all of these documents would NEVER have passed for a Republican and rightly so. Dan Rather lost his career trying to produce forged documents to get Bush impeached; but it didn't work. All of the sealed documents and the secrecy about them not to mention the race card being pulled out by anyone questioning these things arouses suspicion. Better to shoot the messenger. No, there are not victims here — all of this was planned ahead of time. How else could someone with no experience governing, or so little time in the Senate rise so quickly. Just call him "BRILLIANT"! That's what elder statesmen such as Teddy Kennedy did. Heck that's all the endorsement you need, right". Who needs experience. What about the old phrase, "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

      • ellen

        He did not "seal" any documents. He simply did not show his school transcripts, etc. But then neither did Romney or George Bush or Clinton or Reagan or any of them. None of these presidents and candidates sealed their records, and Obama did not do so either.

    • crypticguise

      You're obviously a poorly educated individual. I suggest you return to the years when our Nation was being formed with the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. A Natural Born citizen was someone whose BOTH parents were born in the country of his birth.

      • ellen

        Who told you that?

        It is wrong.

        “Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President …"—- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

        Anything in that about parents?

        How about this from 1803:

        "Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. …St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)

        Anything about parents in that?

        And this from 1829:

        "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)

        And this from the US Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark decision (which by the way was AFTER Minor vs Happersett and hence would have overturned it, if that had actually been a ruling on the matter, which it was not):

        "It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

        III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

        That quite clearly says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel) and that it refers to the place of birth (and there is no mention of parents).

      • PatriciaW

        Really? Since when? Both of my parents were born in Cuba. I was born in the U.S. I do believe that I am eligible to run for president.

    • TiredOfTheLies

      That's exactly the point, Ellen… there is no evidence of Obama's college enrollment "whatsoever".

      All documents relating to his college have been locked up tight, but even BO wrote of his trip to Pakistan at a time when US citizens were restricted from such travel. How? The point is there must be some reason he doesn't want anyone to see his college records. Why? What has he been hiding for so long and at such great expense? Even you cannot say anything more convincing because you have no evidence either.

  • Schlomotion

    I hope it turns out to be illegal to market a book as an autobiography when it is a libelous biography. Furthermore, the fact that Joel Gilbert makes it look like a book, when it is simply a DVD adds another layer of counterfeiting to the enterprise. $14.95 is the goldbricking price for this fake autobiography where Barack Obama is alleged to be the son of some guy with West Indian features who looks like Jay-Z.

    Joel Gilbert is a regular contributor to Frank Gaffney Jr.'s sham-political outfit Family Security Matters. This is not the first time that one of the wackjob interviewees on Alex Jones has also been peddled on Frontpage. Among some of Joel Gilbert's other claims is that Elvis is still alive and was living underground as a Nixon operative.

    • trickyblain

      I really don't think he cares that you are "left wondering." Like a lot of folks, he probably finds it a bit sad and really funny.

    • fiddler

      I have to cough at the pathos! You would make Michael Moore blush! Talking about illegality , the President is undoing welfare reform, and that's illegal. But hey we understand. He is SOOO altruistic. It's not about currying favor. We know that.

      • Schlomotion

        Binary reasoning is very limited. As is often the case here, people think that if you are against one, you are for the other. I do not support Romney. I do not support Obama. And I would gladly throw Michael Moore into a pit of sharpened stakes. Michael Moore is simply the highest grossing capitalist to attack capitalism and the Bill of Rights for a profit. There are more people than Jews and Muslims, than Democrats and Republicans, than Capitalists and Communists. Yours is the politics of football games, drunkards in the bleachers, yelling for one team or the other, in awe of the Goodyear Blimp.

        • Touchstone

          "I would gladly throw Michael Moore into a pit of sharpened stakes"

          You say this despite having claimed – with certainty – that it isn't in you to put any of your violent thoughts into action.

          Yet now you say you would commit an atrocity "gladly". Not even reluctantly, but "gladly".

          Would you carry out your fantasy to "ring Ben Shapiro's neck" equally gladly?

          For a nonviolent person, your thoughts turn to blood and gore with the mildest of provocations.

          You inveigh against the surveillance state, but anyone who expresses a desire to murder specific people with such frequency and nonchalance probably deserves to be monitored closely.

          • Schlomotion

            Right. I daresay 85% of people would want to throw Michael Moore into a pit of sharpened stakes. Or rather, 85% of people who can identify Michael Moore. A lot of people don't know anything.

            Your jibes get shriveled with age. I said that I do not hate people. I said that I intend no violence to any people. I did not say that I am incapable, unwilling, or going to. Why are meanings so flat and binary with you? Are we using the same English language?

            I am already monitored. I was entered into the Department of Homeland Security database in 2005, just two years after becoming a publisher, and again in 2006 after documenting the terrorist activities of local students. My website was wiped in 2008 after outing a spook working at Wikipedia from Cupertino, California. I was fingerprinted and my face sent to the terrorist database last November when I refused a TSA search.

            You are pretty liberal about whom you think should be monitored closely. I think Mitt Romney should be monitored closely, as he receives funds from casino gangsters. I think Barack Obama should be monitored closely as he was in league with people who were trying to sell his old Congressional seat. You think someone should be closely monitored for thinking what a lot of people think, e.g. that Ben Shapiro or Michael Moore inspire and even court unlicensed chiropracting. Do you really think they don't do it on purpose? I think they do.

            Do you ever tire of accusing people of genocide and atrocity in the subjunctive?

          • Touchstone

            Do you ever tire of lying and squirming would be a more appropriate question.

            "I did not say that I am incapable…" — Oh but you did, professor.

            I'm not having any problems with the English language; you're having problems with your memory. I clearly remember you claiming that it's not in you to carry out your violent fantasies, that you would always retain your self-control. It would be hard to find the post in question, because you've scribbled so many, but you wrote it. You can't even keep track of your own bleatings. I remember it well: You were so arrogantly sure you would never stoop so low, and you took me to task for doubting your supernatural self-restraint.

            Now you're not only in denial of what you yourself said, but as a characteristically specious defense you drag everyone else down with you, claiming desperately that "85%" of people (a worthless stat with no bearing on objective reality) would commit an act of barbarism just like you would! Aren't you the sanctimonious snot who chided me for using the bad behavior of one (American colonialists) to justify the bad behavior of another (Israelis)? Now you're doing precisely the same thing: You think it's OK to advocate the impaling of Michael Moore, based on the utterly contrived pretext that 85% of people are just as murderously inclined as you are! As long as everybody else is a barbarian, that makes it OK, right? What an effing hypocrite you are.

            I assure you I'm not in the (nonexistent) 85% cohort you conjured. Unlike you, I can't be easily incited to spill the blood of my fellow humans, particularly when all they're guilty of is slightly unhinged commentary. In fact, I admire Michael Moore and think he's a gifted documentarian, even though he's made some outrageous comments and I probably wouldn't agree with him politically on a number of issues. If a rabid drooling animal like you tried to throw him on stakes, I'd extend my hand to save him, and then campaign to have you occupy the cell next to James Holmes.

            "I said that I do not hate people" — That's really the biggest laugher of them all, too ludicrous to merit a serious response. You've made the targets of your violent hatred painfully obvious (ring his neck, throw him on stakes, Zionists are the equivalent of Mengele and Goebbels, Jews are obnoxious and inconsequential, and on and on). Your incessant denials are as feeble and lame as anything I've ever seen.

            "Do you really think they don't do it on purpose? I think they do." — So this is how you justify your murderous hatred? Seriously? Michael Moore and Ben Shapiro are clear-cut cases of justifiable homicide? And you don't think a loon like yourself who expresses a desire to kill his fellow citizens is raising any red flags?

            I suppose freedom of speech ends where you decide it ends, and anyone who oversteps the boundaries Your Majesty draws should invest in round-the-clock personal security and live like Geert Wilders to protect himself from Your Majesty's righteous wrath. My my, in railing against the fascist takeover of America, you've gone and become a fascist yourself.

            You're a liar, a hypocrite, a callous bigot, an insufferable egomaniac, and a damn fool. You can't even keep track of your own self-righteous, indignant codswallop. (Early onset dementia, perhaps?) You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are, and I must admit I take some pleasure in illustrating that fact.

          • Schlomotion

            Well, memory is tainted by our own sense of heroism, in your case, the belief that you have been heroically defending Israel against one of its many persecutors. That is something that I simply view as melodramatic bathos.

            Michael Moore is widely viewed as a muckraking idiot. I have been to at least one of his movies, and he is a liar who gains entry to peoples' houses on false premises and then insults them on camera, pretends to be in the NRA but opposes the 2nd Amendment, pretends to be against Capitalism but is a goldbricker. The cinematography might be good, but like with James Cameron, we have a man telling telling Americans that they need to live with less, accept more squeezing, more bleeding, while he himself pontificates from a sprawling ranch and then becomes an expatriate. They produce political nonsense to get rich and the pollution of that nonsense hangs like a cloud giving people the feeling that dispossessing others, whether for oligarchs or on behalf of imaginary teeming masses of deprived people of color is justified. They are definitely pumping out a form of violence. Deception is violent. Dispossession is violent. Dismantling of inalienable rights is violent, it's merely tertiarily violent. They necessitate violence. So sure, I imagine just beating them up. I settle for telling them off, because it works very well.

            You're trying to shame me, but you are just some anonymous guy irritated by the flak that I give out toward Hasbara PR, flak that is so richly deserved, and so resoundingly and simply effective. I repeat that I don't hate people. You also don't have to hate people to beat on them, you just have to be opposed to the force that they are using and counter it, but that is academic.

            Unless it was a typo, I would have said "wring his neck," not "ring his neck." In any event, your red flags would be better hoisted on a green jeep somewhere, because we seem to keep atavistically going back to your com.mun.itarian defense of the shtetl from imagined pogroms. Your charge of egomania is really an attempt to damn me for not sharing in or respecting the group-identity egomania of Zionists, but your allegiance is very last century and outdated.

          • Touchstone

            "memory is tainted by our own sense of heroism" — Laughable nonsense. My memory isn't tainted by any such thing. You're full of ad-hoc, BS theories you conjure on the spot in a feeble attempt to discredit your detractors. Your hypothesis has no merit, but since you don't remember what you wrote, you have to scribble SOMETHING in your defense.

            "They are definitely pumping out a form of violence" — Another theory fit for the garbage can. You know you were caught espousing the gleeful murder of a filmmaker (putting you on the same level of barbarism as the jihadist thug who murdered a Dutch filmmaker a few years ago), so you know you need to twist the truth into impossible contortions to make Moore look like a violent thug deserving of violent punishment. If most murderers could twist the truth like you can, they too would put forth equally lame theories as to why their innocent victims had it coming. The answer, in their case as in yours, couldn't possibly be a bestial longing to inflict pain. No, it must be that the victim is, in fact, the true murderer. What utter nonsense.

            "tertiarily violent" — Yeah, right. It never occurs to you that you ascribe far too much power and influence to the objects of your wrath, as in Shapiro or Moore (or Horowitz, or Spencer, or Dershowitz, and on and on). There's no way to prove that the fans of your intended victims are on the verge of committing acts of violence, thereby necessitating violent reprisals against the agitators. Moore is an entertainer, his films haven't inspired violence, and he's not deserving of impalement. He's not the one who advocated killing anyone. YOU ARE.

            "I settle for telling them off, because it works very well." — Online trolling accomplishes virtually nothing. Accomplishing nothing seems to be your highest calling. You have no proof that your endless drivel "works very well". It's just another empty boast.

            "you are just some anonymous guy irritated by the flak that I give out" — You can't adequately defend your statements so you resort to scribbling sewage-worthy, reality-distorting theories and quasi-psychoanalytic garbage in a lame attempt to discredit detractors. Your thousands of posts haven't put a dent in your own anonymity, which must be galling to a self-deluded egomaniac with grandiose ambitions.

            "I don't hate people" — It doesn't matter whether you're experiencing the sensation of intense hatred or not. What you express is hateful. You could be enjoying a drug-induced high for all I care; what you write here every day is often as mean-spirited and hateful as those who do in fact harbor intense feelings of hatred. You're in denial about it, so the most damning characterization you'll use to describe your bigotry is to sum it all up as "glib". To you, it's merely "glib" to liken Jewish internet commentators to Mengele and Goebbels. Not hateful. "Glib". You're not a trustworthy evaluator of your own drivel. You're in denial and you have a stake in portraying your hateful words as something other than what they are.

          • Schlomotion

            A recurrent theme here, in your scornful rebuttals is that I should merrily allow detractors and not defend my position. Is it not enough that I am cheerful and find you both erudite and amusing? I must also accept belittling and blistering vilipension and not be my own advocate?

            As you see, you cannot play the concerned conscience of counterjihad if I refuse to play the jihadist beast. Kudos to you for trying to portray Michael Moore as the next Theo Van Gogh, and myself as the next Mohammed Bouyeri. That is either a wild imagination or some first class histrionics. That was worthy of Robert Spencer. By my mere commentary, an environment was created in which Michael Moore's very life was jeopardized as well as the lives of Jews. Do you realize you have cribbed the argument of hostile environment and of rap.e culture from every college feminist just there? I think we just took the Wayback Machine to 1992.

            Perhaps, I do overestimate the power and influence of my broad spectrum of opponents. Statistically though, one might be inclined to believe that in a pool so large, some of these people like AIPAC's most prominent member might actually wield some power and influence and not be the hapless sch.mucks you portray them to be with your diminishing ray. Or perhaps I simply project what I myself would do in their positions if it were mine to not squander the resources of Breitbart.com, AIPAC, Pajamas Media, or the $350,000 annual hate-stipend of Jihad Watch on petty villainy.

            Not jealousy. Simply a reasonable assumption of the possibilities and talents of people who accomplish far less with far greater resources and props than myself. You say that "Online trolling accomplishes virtually nothing" and that "Accomplishing nothing seems to be [my] highest calling." These proclamations fall flat, as antagonizing a belligerent force of narcissistic propagandists, making them feel as if their media station, their publications, their political analysts, and their Kulturkampf are cr.ap really does take a profound toll. Heck, simply disagreeing with them politely, kindly and factually wreaks havoc on any manufactured consensus. You, of course have moved into that zone of disparagement and vilification of the cheerful disagreer, and it is sheer comedy. You don't like me, but I like you. How can anyone defend against that?

            We return to your thesis that my egomania and the collective corporate egomania of Israelism cannot coexist on the same planet. I think they can. Especially when Israelism is a tempest in a teapot. When persons like yourself try to dump that teapot into mens' laps, then persons like myself warn the world of crot.ch burns and scalding. Your task is to convince me to sit still and take the burn. Why would I?

          • Touchstone

            "I should merrily allow detractors and not defend my position" — You miss the point. You go after your detractors personally. You defend your position by attempting to discredit the messenger (employing faux psychoanalysis and other techniques). When you're not shooting the messenger, you're concocting hyperbole or engaging in some other form of specious argumentation.

            "myself as the next Mohammed Bouyeri" — Again you miss the point. It's true that you haven't yet slaughtered anyone as per your expressed intentions, but in sanctioning the barbaric murder of Moore on "sharpened stakes" (something on which you said you would "gladly" throw him), you've obviously descended to (or very nearly to) the moral level of people who carry out such crimes, despite all your unconvincing squirming to the contrary. You contend hysterically that Moore himself is guilty of violence when he's but a mere filmmaker, yet you deem it "wild imagination" to suggest that you're a moral degenerate for glorifying slaughter. Double standard, anyone?

            Most of your post consists of hyperbolic, topic-changing silliness not worth responding to. For example, I didn't say you created an environment in which Moore is threatened. I'm saying you're on the same level of moral degeneracy as anyone else who espouses the murder of creative artists. Another example: I didn't say that the columnists you impugn are "hapless schmucks". You can't seem to construct one single argument free of such word-twisting tripe. I have to sift through your long-winded buffoonery searching for something worth responding to.

            "wreaks havoc on any manufactured consensus" — I'm sure they don't presume to achieve a consensus in regards to the opinions they publish, nor should they. It goes without saying that people are diverse and disagreement is inevitable. Trolls are inevitable. Who is so naive that he thinks his opinions will meet with unanimous approval? You're not putting a dent in anyone's pipe dream of achieving a consensus. You're playing a role so predictable it could have been scripted for you.

          • Schlomotion

            So we have here, that allegedly, I am a bigot, that I am cynical toward, even punitive toward people who abdicate their own agency in transmitting the message that Muslims are evil and enemies to the Jews exist around every corner, just waiting to leap out, encouraged by my "hateful" speech. Also, nobody but a licensed practitioner of psychoanalysis who also loves Israel can say anything about mental motivations and impulses. Then we have the raucous claim by you that I truly and dearly want and plan to assassinate Michael Moore, filmmaker extraordinaire and doer of no other social deeds, but do not because my hatred has all been exhausted on Frontpage. Then, I am somehow predictable and scripted, when you proclaim regularly that you suddenly found out I can go even lower. Now I am a moral degenerate. Also, no tangential subjects may be discussed. Words only mean their primary dictionary definitions, and only lower predicate calculus may be used in any logic statements.

            Are there any more parameters that you want to construct so that we can preserve the fragile egos of a belligerent media organization and turn back the clock to a reactionary time when you couldn't openly criticize Jews for fear of angering God or causing a Second Holocaust?

          • Touchstone

            Are you aware that you constantly put words in my mouth, twist what I write, whine hyperbolically, and generally stray off into the wilderness?

            "you proclaim regularly that you suddenly found out I can go even lower" — Show me multiple instances of me doing this. Then you'll have a point, rather than just another pile of manure. (By the way, is "going even lower" an example of how you keep things "fresh and new"?)

            "a reactionary time when you couldn't openly criticize Jews" — What merit does the criticism "Zionist commentators are just like Mengele and Goebbels" have? Your "criticism" usually reads more like kneejerk bigotry.

          • Schlomotion

            "Are you aware that you constantly put words in my mouth, twist what I write, whine hyperbolically, and generally stray off into the wilderness?"

            Yes. I am the lollipop salesman. The ropemaker. I am the turbine. I am Gretel.

            "Show me multiple instances of me doing this."

            I am the roll of film.

            "Your 'criticism' usually reads more like kneejerk bigotry. "

            I am the reflex hammer.

            What merit does anything have, save for what we vest it with? I respect this, I praise that. I can find this man or that crowd or this book or that tradition to make my issuance of esteem and respect look like more of a consensus, a great We, a Caesar of many, an amalgamation of messengers. We call a favorite object's quality innate and anthropomorphize the birth of the object, the conception of the idea, the crowning and delivery of the opinion, the acceptance, naming, and swaddling of the criticism. What merit indeed.

          • Touchstone

            Oy vay, Schlomo. I should have known better than to keep this exchange going.

            To the person out there who's reading these posts and giving me thumbs up: Thanks! I'm impressed that somebody is actually bothering to read our banter. (You have my sympathies.)

          • Touchstone

            "imagined pogroms" — This is just more of that quasi-psychoanalytic, distract-the-focus, discredit-the-opponent nonsense you engage in. You can't defend what you write from the standing charges, so you search through what you're certain is my stereotypical Jewish brain and discover what you're certain is animating my hostility (which couldn't possibly be your heinous remarks!). You try to turn the tables on me, and make the discussion about my fear of pogroms and my instinctive condemnation of those who threaten my group-identity. What you forsake with all this conjured crap is any convincing argument in defense of your lies, hypocrisy, hate, and hyper-violent, murderous longings.

            It's as if a group of bioengineers programmed you: "Spew hate. Discredit detractors. Spew hate. Discredit detractors. Spew hate. Discredit detractors."

            "Your charge of egomania" — You're not a shrink so it's no surprise you're doing such a miserable job pretending to be one. There's no cause for reading into this charge at all. You've described yourself as "extravagantly gifted"; you've likened yourself to Alexander the Great; you've expressed grandiose ambitions; you've pissed on everyone else you talk to with the disdain of a Roman emperor. You see yourself as a world-historical figure who hasn't yet remade the world in his image. The "charge" of egomania stems directly from your own egomaniacal rantings. Even though this point should be self-evident, you can't help indulging your penchant for psychobabble, imagining yourself qualified to shrink brains. Thinking yourself a psychoanalyst is yet more evidence of your egomania!

            "your allegiance is very last century and outdated" — Yes, yes, I know. Hatred of Jews is all in my imagination. Pogroms are a thing of the past. Jewish suffering is never to return. There's no such thing as a Nazi anymore. There's simply no antisemitic feeling anywhere waiting to be exploited by the right people under the right conditions. In fact, the future is so rosy, no refuge for Jews could ever possibly be necessary. What I've described as endlessly repeated history is simply a "lying ass" and a terribly unreliable guide for predicting the future. You know better. You, in your infinite wisdom. How wrong I've been. How "last century and outdated". Antisemitism ended in 1945. What the heck was I thinking?

            Funny how your hateful rantings prove the very inverse of your arguments. Your own anti-Jewish bigotry (which you know you need to keep denying) is in sync with a globally pervasive prejudice of Jews, a prejudice that can be extremely dangerous under the right conditions, as it's proven to be time and again. In your own annoying way, you're a trivial but stark reminder that Jewish vigilance continues to be warranted: Though you claim that today's Jews are immune to "outdated" bursts of violence, your own violent, hateful rhetoric–in the context of a WORLD full of similar rhetoric–suggests the very opposite.

            In short, your very presence here militates against your efforts. You're achieving the opposite of what you set out to achieve. A wave of vicious hecklers like you will create more unity among Jews, not less; will strengthen Jewish resolve, not weaken it; will remind Jews that antisemitism is very real, not overblown. By heckling and berating Jews and Israel, people like you remind Jews why Israel is still important to the people it was designed to protect.

            Hatefully chiding Jews for being concerned about a hateful world is not only ironic, it's counterproductive and obtuse. Like your many, many posts.

          • Schlomotion

            Your hatred of psychoanalysis (and rocks and minerals, and wind, and herbs, and rainbows) aside, your one big claim in this post is that somehow my "goal" militates against my efforts. Your best sentence was:

            "By heckling and berating Jews and Israel, people like you remind Jews why Israel is still important to the people it was designed to protect."

            Good heavens, I am simply throwing (effortlessly, I might add) Abbie Hoffman and Lenny Bruce at you. Why have I thrown Gilad Atzmon at you? Why have you been only able to respond to me by calling me a narcissist, a beast, a druggie, a hateful and profane self-seeking America and Jew-hating savage? Touchstone, you are trying to put things outside yourself that are of you. You want to roll back the 1960s and 1970s. You are angry with me, but I am not angry with you. When you post, I realize our commonalities, not our differences. Each swipe at my "egomania" is like a boomerang at your passive-aggression.

            Each time you scream yourself blue, I am simply trying to make sure it is a different direction of blue than the last time, because we really should change our hues with each exchange. I know what you are going to say most times, so I change what I am going to say before I say it, to make sure this exchange stays fresh and new. My goal isn't to prevent Jews as a category from being less paranoid, less tribal, and less vicious. I am not the the Brookings Institution, and Jews are not my Muslims. What I am is a fully fledged member of The Movement, and I agree by nature with Michael Lerner, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Eldridge Cleaver, Cornel West, most of the rap stars that David Horowitz went on a rampage against in the late 1990s early 2000s. You are funny when you say heckling does nothing and berating bad people has no effect. It has every effect.

            You support Israel, but I spent the weekend hand-building a Golan house alone brick by brick and then took a break to read Peter Richardson's Ramparts book. You say I hate Jews, but I have presented materials at Hillel. You call me an internet troll, but I have published a magazine. You say I am anonymous, but I joyfully raise a family and publish music. You say I am a murderous beast who clearly wrings his hands and contemplates killing filmmakers. My dear fellow, I don't talk about doing things. I do things first and maybe, if pressed, talk about them after. I am not BS77, or Drakken, or VermontYid, or any of the other commenters at FPM who keep announcing that one day violence will be done and magically it will coincide with their Israelist worldviews. I am a builder and a doer.

            Look at the recent rage by writers such as Ronn Torossian to try to counter the "you didn't build that" line of reasoning. If he didn't broadcast that here, then no one would be wise to the fact that anti-Wagnerian Kulturkampf is taking place again. Look. I found a threat that you missed, the resurgent canard that Jews are not makers. Except that it is not resurgent. A Hasbara publication was midwifing it back into existence to protect ca.si.no magnates.

            As to your claim that my "efforts" will simply make Israelists into more wrathful, more paranoid hard nuts, I welcome it. It is self-destructive and such energy cannot be sustained.

          • Touchstone

            You're a provocateur, so virtually everything you write can be viewed in that context. You come here to goad people you arrogantly disdain, as if it's a hobby, or a way to release the pent-up rage you harbor as a result of being detained on the road.

            It's no wonder, then, that you falsely accuse me of possessing a "hatred" of things I don't in fact hate. We've covered this numerous times, but you bring it up again because, as I said, your primary objective is to inflame and provoke. You fail to provoke with this line of argument, however, because it's just bizarre. No human on Earth "hates" rocks and plants and rainbows, etc. And I certainly don't hate something as interesting as psychoanalysis. When I object to charlatans like yourself posing as shrinks, that just means I have contempt for YOU, not for psychoanalysis. But by explaining this, I'm playing your meaningless game of gratuitous provocation.

            "I know what you are going to say most times, so I change what I am going to say before I say it, to make sure this exchange stays fresh and new" — What comes out the rear ends of horses has more power to convince than this claim. Clearly, you're the one who's mind-numbingly predictable. IN EVERY SINGLE POST, you simply can't help distorting my points, flinging false accusations, using hyperbole, gratuitously provoking me, digressing tediously, shooting the messenger, and putting yourself on a pedestal, this time by claiming that you can read my mind. You're so predictable, I feel like I've been CONDITIONED to expect the same stale tactics from you each time.

            Well, I'm glad you find your rantings "fresh and new". That makes one of us. (By the way, how can I be "amusing" if you know what I'm going to say? Another contradiction.) For writing so "fresh and new", it's a wonder I feel so bored.

          • Schlomotion

            You forget that I am also here to deal with these articles and their writers on their merits. Frequently the articles are without merit, are blowback, racist passion plays, discourses on the anatomy of the ancient American Communist movement or assaults on peoples' lineages, privately held opinions, and family members. Naysaying and debunking, disagreeing, and rebuttal are provocative acts. Refusing to be pilloried for it, is also provocative. Feigning ennui is a good gambit, but it presumes that I have a goal of entertaining you. Do you remember that we were, or I was originally commenting on an article above where a huckster and conspiracy theorist named Joel Gilbert had published a bogus and defamatory autobiography, much in the same tone as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mr. Tapson was repping that video as bona fide factual source material?

          • Touchstone

            "Frequently the articles are without merit" — In your opinion. Curiously, you choose to express this opinion by writing posts that have even less merit.

            "Refusing to be pilloried" — You're the one who initiates the pelting and pillorying. Must be a nice way to relax after being detained at a checkpoint.

            "Do you remember…" — Nope.

          • Schlomotion

            I think it's funny that you neither acknowledge the hostile and yellow tones of these articles, nor do you remember which one we are in.

          • Touchstone

            I think it's funny that you accuse me above (of proclaiming that you "regularly" sink lower) and can't produce a shred of evidence to support your accusation. You're rarely at a loss for words, such as they are; in this one delicious case, your embarrassed silence speaks louder than all your posts combined.

          • Schlomotion

            Caesuras can be beautiful.

            O! divided world, sliced by communication.
            Filling as brine doth ebb
            From senseless scrapes of beach.

    • fiddler

      Yep. Ranks right up there with Harry Reid's allegation of the 10 years of Romney's not paying taxes. Guess to quote Reid, " the burden of proof is on him".

  • teq

    Well, this sounds quite shocking, but there's an easy way for Obama to disprove it. All he has to do is submit a DNA sample and let it be compared with that from one of the Obamas in Kenya. If he refuses to do this then we will be left wondering…

    • ellen

      I say that Mitt Romney's real father was Harpo Marx. If Romney does not submit a DNA sample, then we will be left wondering…

      • Christian West

        Ellen, you silly cow
        Harpo Marx was an American and, certainly, not a commie therefore his being or not being father of Romney is completely irrelevant to the latter's run for presidency. So what exactly are you trying to say? Hoping to be funny? If being pathetic were funny you would be hilarious.

        • ellen

          I am trying to say that the speculation that Davis was Obama's father is exactly the same as speculating that Harpo Marx was Romney's father.

          • Christian West

            Are you drunk, or just plain dumb?
            Davis may have or may have not, been Obamas father. Nevertheless given that Davis was, like so many others, humping Obamas mom, and stayed around long enough to infect Obamas feeble brains with communism the speculation is neither incongruous nor irrational.
            However there are no reports, no gossips, nor witness to Romney's mother ever meeting Harpo Marx, neither has Romney distinguished himself as a harp player – a skill one could suspect was passed to him by Harpo, the way the hatred of America was passed to Obama by Davis.
            You strike me as a rather dumb person, yet it would never occur to me to speculate if some elderly idiot I accidentally met could be your daddy.

          • ellen

            Just because you say something does not make it so. For example: "Harpo Marx may have or may have not, been Romney's father. Nevertheless given that Harpo Marx was, like so many others, humping Romney's mom, and stayed around long enough to infect Obamas feeble brains with Marxism, the speculation is neither incongruous nor irrational. "

            It is speculation. That is all that it is.

          • ellen

            Just because you say something does not make it so. For example: "Harpo Marx may have or may have not, been Romney's father. Nevertheless given that Harpo Marx was, like so many others, humping Romney's mom, and stayed around long enough to infect Romney's feeble brains with Marxism, the speculation is neither incongruous nor irrational. "

    • Joyce Luna

      Yes, if he is truly sincere to the American people, and to squash all the rumors going around then he would do the DNA.
      We have to have photos, birth Certificates, to see our Doctors , to purchase a Car, House, go into business. I suggest that he have the DNA to disprove these lies, that is if they are lies and ask Mr. Obama to do this soon!!!!!l you please do this Mr. Obama?

  • Arius

    Joel Gilbert presents a case that I must consider. It makes consistent facts that up to now did not fit together. Even without Gilbert's case it is evident from the facts that Obama is a Marxist. Obama's many speeches with concepts from the communist playbook ('you didn't build it', 'the free market doesn't work, has never worked', 'Forward' – his Leninist campaign slogan, etc) have already convinced me that he is a closet Marxist. Gilbert has for me tied up the remaining facts into a consistent whole picture of how Obama became what he is. Obama is an immense danger to America.

    • teq

      Yeah, if he should get another term — G-d forbid! — he will "have more flexibility" as he told Medved to tell Vladamir Putin. THEN we would see Obama's true colors.

  • Steeloak

    The filmmaker presents some interesting speculation & the resemblence between them is uncanny.

    The nature of the relationship between Obama & his mentor the communist Frank Marshall Davis should have been explored in depth before he was elected president in 2008. Had Obama's full history been revealed, as well as his Marxist beliefs, he would never have won the nomination, let alone the election.

    Now, in 2012, we know who Obama is & what his ideology is and the main issue in this election is his abysmal record as president.

    • Looking4Sanity

      "Had Obama's full history been revealed,…"

      Evidently, his handlers are far more intelligent than he is. They saw to it that the information we needed was concealed from us. But, you know what they say, right? "Fool me once, shame on you…"!

  • kaleokualoha

    My, what an ACTIVE imagination! There is no evidence that Davis ever discussed Marxist theory with Obama, or that Obama (or Gramps) were even aware of Davis's CPUSA connection. There is no evidence that Obama's mother ever met Davis, much less that they were intimate. Further, those photographs were NOT taken at Davis's home at 2994 Kalihi Street in Honolulu. I should know. I lived there. FMD is my father.

    "Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." – Abraham Lincoln

    • Larry

      And the Rosenberg kids will tell you their parents were innocent, too.

  • BlueOhio

    I can't believe America has become so stupid as to fall for this propaganda. Shame on anyone who thinks this is either journalism or documentary filmmaking. It's bigoted crap.

  • watsa46

    A paternity/DNA test should solve the question.

  • clay

    Divide and conquer. Looks like its working.

  • forgetmenot

    I wonder ,how much these people were paid for this CRAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    How many times have you sold your (if any) integrity??????????
    YOU, BETTER INVESTIGATE YOUR SOULS .(if you have any)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • BRannon

    October 11th, 2012 at 4:11 am
    This film was very well done and researched. Much of it wasn`t a suprise to me as it redocumented what I’d already learned about Obama throughout the past 4 years through several alternative resorces. On the same note, there was excellent, deeper informational detail ln Obamma’s history that I wasn`t aware of that further support the main facts about him that I have gotten elsewhere over the years. America, as a collective source, including this film, have done very well at researching and exposing the real Obama. Unfortunately, most folks are to busy and don`t take the time to research our leaders via informational films like this so they can better educate themselves for the vote.
    GOD BLESS , do the research(Not the mainstream media) and vote with your heart.

  • enoughAlready911

    Even if 80% of this movie were COMPLETELY false(which I am not saying is the case)
    the remaining 20% would represent the biggest snow job/lie EVER perpetrated on the American people.

    There are people who know the truth if they would just speak out…..people who have seen the birth certificate…..people who have seen the grades…..people who know whether he earned his way into Harvard while only having C grades.

    People who know is true relationship with Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. People who will report that Axelrod IS the son of a card carrying communist member.

    Or people who can get a dna sample from Obama and compare that to his brother in Kenya……if that single fact is true(ie Frank Davis is his father NOT Obama Sr) then the WHOLE Obama story is a fairy tale.

    Watch this film and make up your own mind.

  • susan

    i received mine in the mail today and am very happy to say i threw it out without viewing it-

  • Dave

    It must be reason why Joel Gilbert is using fictitious name, mini biography without picture of his face. If you are this magnitude liar you have to run from your own personality before your conscious will hunt and kill you.

  • jeff hernbloom

    The makers of this propoganda film shouuld be ashamed of themselves. It is extremely unfortunate that this film will influence the ignorant masses which it targets. I plead, American voters please do not fall for scare tactics and lies. And as for the condition of the economy, it is in better shape then it was 3 years ago. It took bush and the republican party 8 years to destroy the strong economy that Bill Clinton had built. Obama has our economy headed in the right direction with zero cooperation from the republican dominated house of represetatives. Please give Obama the chance to put his plan in to action.

  • babumjane

    I do not understand why the Republicans did not use any of this info and make it public if it was true. I am not saying it is not true just why did they not bring it up