Safety Month BOTMKT Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums The best from Bose just got wireless Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks STEM Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 22, 2010 7:45:49 PM PDT
CJV says:
The title of this book would seemingly indicate that bias and rhetoric are contained within it's pages. With the product description promising to "uncover" truths, I appeal myself to those who have read this book.

Please help me to decide wether to read/buy this book or not. I need a few questions answered to help me in my decision.

Is the book factually based with minimized bias issues?

How extensive is the bibliography?

Have any independent organizations fact checked the claims and assertions put forward?

How easy is it for the reader to do their own "homework"?

Does the author meet the "burden of proof"?

To anyone willing to take on some or all of my questions, thank you very much. I'm naturally very wary and skeptical of books with over sensationalized titles.

Posted on Sep 22, 2010 8:34:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 22, 2010 8:49:42 PM PDT
Dear Mr. (or Ms.) "CJV", the only advice I can respectfully afford to you is... to go the nearest library and sign out the book so you, "yourself"... can answer your own questions. I know that sounds like a roundabout answer, but if you read some of these book reviews on both sides, no one agrees to disagree "respectfully", so it is up to your own interpretation of the merits or demerits of the book.

The title of course is....."The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and Other Anti-American Extremists". Whichever side of the political fence you're on... will dictate whether you agree or diagree with the foundation and premise of the book. You are half-way there because you are "open-minded" person, who appears to be "devoid of political opinion". When I began my quest, I looked at this somewhat simple question, hoping that quite possibly "Mr. Obama", himself, would help me decide.

The question I asked myself was... "Did Mr. Obama have contacts or had ties or maintained associations, by any definition", with people such as... (1) Rev. Wright? Would an open-minded person consider whether Rev. Wright, by his own words, actions and deeds might very well be an "anti-American extremist"? How about, (2) Mr. Van Jones? A fair, open-minded and clear thinker could ask themselves "IF" Mr. Jones is an admitted "communist", by any definition? Then there are (3) Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? A fair and balanced, open-minded person could as themselves "IF" they both admitted to "terrorist acts" actions, deeds and words against the United States of America and the American people? Finally, there is Mrs. Anita Dunn? By her own words, deeds and actions can she accurately, truthfully and honestly be considered a "socialist", by any definition?

Unfortunately you have only two options... (1) I suggest you "do not purchase the book", but obtain a copy from the local library, and read it if you so desire. Therefore, "you can make up your own mind as to the validity or accuracy, of the book itself and the motivation of the authors". OR (2) Do not purchase the book nor take the time to read the book!

Asking for guidance and direction is wonderful concept and I admire, as well as respect you, for doing so... ONLY IF... you can receive "a fair and balanced answer" from interested customers to your questions. Unfortunately, I am not sure that is possible because of the polarization our country finds itself. It is my belief, one should follow his or her own heart and research everything for themselves to find the truth in issues which are important to human beings. Then you make up your own mind, knowing you found the "truth".

I wish I could be helpful, but that is my opinion.

Good luck and God's speed.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2010 7:32:29 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 26, 2010 7:40:22 PM PDT
W. Wilson says:

It isn't enough to go to the library and check out the book. Klein is a contributor to World Net Daily, a right-wing site devoted to bringing down Obama and the Democrats. Their writers routinely lie and obfuscate.

Go to MediaMatters on the Web. They have a good article, "Ten Reasons Why Aaron Klein's 'The Manchurian President' is Ridiculous Cr*p."

Although MediaMatters is a left-leaning Web site, they uncover Klein's poor research methods; the article just might convince you to steer clear of it. For the record, Klein has been recorded as saying "Obama wants to 'bore from within' to bring down capitalism in the US." Do you believe that? I don't.

I have researched several of Klein's claims and have found them to be dubious. Please check out my one-star review of the book here, as I provide a list of items where Klein fails to prove his allegation with facts, virtually from page 1 to the references. It truly is a horrid book, and when it isn't horrid, it's terribly dull.

Best wishes!

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2010 8:00:02 PM PDT
CJV says:
Thank you W. Wilson for contributing an analytical article. I'll check it out!

If anyone else knows of any others, either for or against, please let me know.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2010 8:17:17 PM PDT
W. Wilson says:
You're welcome.

I just checked Klein's book: to answer a question from your original post, there is no bibliography.

There is a Notes section. The book is heavily footnoted, the inside flap brags that there are over 800 footnotes, but several times when I have followed the links to their sources (I have the e-book), I've actually found information that casts doubt if not downright disproves what Klein (or Elliott) asserts.

For example, in Chapter 5, "Issues of Eligibility," footnote 17 links to a letter typed on official letterhead of the State of Hawaii. The letter has to do with an MD certifying that Obama's vital birth records were in fact viewed by that MD.

Now, in the book, Klein claims (twice) that "Barack" is spelled "Barrack" in the letter.

However, if you go to the source for footnote 17, you can see this in not the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2013 12:51:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2013 11:34:14 AM PDT
JNagarya says:
"Whichever side of the political fence you're on... will dictate whether you agree or diagree with the foundation and premise of the book."

If the "foundation and premise" of the book were facts, then one wouldn't be on one side or the other of those facts, because facts are neither far-right, far-left, or centrist-liberal; they are neutral.

That you don't realize and accept that reality substantiates the obvious: that the book isn't based upon facts, and your view isn't either; it is wholly political, wholly ideological. It is wholly incapable of knowing the difference between fact, on one hand, and on the other "opinion". Between, on one hand, news, and on the other, "opinion". News is fact; opinion is not news.

And that you don't know how to distinguish between "opinion" and that which isn't opinion. Here's a primer on the point:

1. There are two basic forms of opinion: informed, and uninformed. Obviously -- objectively -- informed opinion is superior to uninformed opinion. 1+1=2 is fact. 1+1=3 is false; it is not an "opinion".

2. An "opinion" has a chance of being true. An untruth, a falsehood, a lie, cannot be an opinion because an untruth, a falsehood, a lie cannot in any sense be true.

3. The false reduction of fact to "opinion" in order to reduce it to the level of a lie falsely elevated to the level of "opinion" is intellectually dishonest. It is a fraud. It is moral relativism. It is, ultimately nihilist, libertine, anarchy.

Those are the methods -- reducing fact to "opinion" and camparing it to a falsehood falsely labeled "opinion" -- by means of which the FOX cesspool, hate radio, and such as World Nut Daily attack and undermine reason and standards in order to get their propaganda believed: reduce a truth to an "opinion," elevate a lie to "opinion" -- then leave it up to the viewer to decide which of the two "opinions" to believe.

Go back and reread that carefully, until you understand it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 19, 2013 1:04:52 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 21, 2013 11:36:37 AM PDT
JNagarya says:
Propagandist Klein and his ilk are correct in their assumption that the "readers" they target are sufficiently impressed with "footnotes" that they won't actually check to determine whether the "sources" cited in the footnotes actually exist, and or are legitmate, and or are accurately represented.

I've seen conspirabunkers post links to an FBI document "proving" that George H. W. Bush was in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. But if one actually READ the FBI document to which linked, one learned he was actually in Midland, TX on that date.

And then there's the "classic" example about Waco: Linda Thompson posted what she expressly said was "the" "Warrant for Arrest" of Kult King Koresh. But when on actually READ the Warrant, one discovered that it was instead the Warrant for SEARCH of the compound.

But the gullibles went ballistic is keeping with the lie about the nature of the Warrant -- instead of engaging in the simple effort of actually READING the Warrant that Thompson herself posted. But she knew her target audience: they'll believe anything they're told, without a shred of evidence to support it, so long as it is the "correct" slant of hysterical paranoia.

If such fact-free hate-based propagandists were to bet that their pandering to the gullibility of the ignorant -- the "it has footnotes therefore is true" sucker -- would succeed in raking in the dough from those who buy such trash, they would win the bet.

In this specific instance they are confronted with a quandary -- which they will ignore:

1. Klein obviously relies on the cited letter as being reliable, which is why he uses it to support his claims. (That he misrepresents the contents of the letter is sufficient evidence that he is sloppy -- or dishonest.)

2. The letter obviously verifies that Barack Obama was in fact born in Hawaii -- a fact, substantiated in a letter on which Klein relies as reliable proof -- which is contrary to the lie that he was not born in Hawaii, and which lie the Klienites want to be true, even though Klien's own evidence -- that letter -- refutes that lie.

Of course, Klien knows his "audience": gullibles who won't actually make the adult effort to determine whether Klien's sources support his claims.

And I note that they flag your fact-based post as not contributing to the discussion -- because they have no use for fact and truth, especially when it refutes the false excuses for their racist hate.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  4
Total posts:  7
Initial post:  Sep 22, 2010
Latest post:  Oct 19, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions