Search
Home  |   About  |   Q & A  |   Archives  |   Credits  |   Contact  |  
« Austin Cracking Down on Illegal Immigrants
5 Year Quit Smoking Anniverary (+ 3 days) »

Was Obama’s Great Uncle Even in the Army During WWII?

I wrote yesterday about Barry Obama re-inventing military and world history by claiming that his uncle was part of an American infantry brigade that liberated Auschwitz.

Two real big problems were immediately apparent:

  1. Obama doesn’t have any uncles; his mother was an only child.
  2. Unless Obama’s fictitious uncle served in the Red Army, he didn’t liberate Auschwitz. The Russians did.

Obama’s team immediately went into full cover-our-asses mode, and backtracked claiming that his uncle=great uncle, and that Auschwitz=Buchenwald.

Well, the problem with trying to cover up one lie without having to admit that you actually lied, is that you almost always have to tell another to do so.

And the thing about lying about military service is that it’s usually pretty easy to verify.

Which is what Dan Riehl tried to do in the case of Barry’s Great Uncle Charles W. Payne of Kansas. And cant’ find a record of any Charles W. Payne of Kansas having served in the US Army during WW II:

His only Great Uncle is Charles W. Payne. It at least appears that no one by that name from Kansas served in the Army during WWII.

Charles W. Payne of Kansas, with a similar birth era, served in the Navy during WWII.

Uh oh. It looks like Great Uncle Charlie did most of his liberating from the decks of a Naval vessel.

This in no way disparages the service of Mr. Payne, but I think that Mr. Obama might have given credit to his Great Uncle that he did not earn.

Since Mr. Payne is still alive, he could promptly end this controversy by simply giving his rank, and the unit(s) that he served with in the US Army whilst liberating Auschwitz Buchenwald.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Wednesday, May 28th, 2008 | Trackback |

14 Responses to “Was Obama’s Great Uncle Even in the Army During WWII?”

Seem Obama has learned from the masters of telling lies: The Clintons!

The Clinton’s philosophy has always been keep telling lies, the public will eventually believe it! That’s because the media is too lazy and too biased to care about facts!

Obama can lie all he wants because he knows the media will never challenge him on it.

Left by BBB on May 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am

I want to see Barry explain his statement that he had now traveled/visited all 57 states.

Show us where those extra 7 states are !

Think he’ll come back with saying he was counting (what do you call them ?) US territories as states ?
That won’t wash……
He didn’t know one of the most BASIC things that one learns early in grade school…..50 states…..MORON.
Maybe he needs to look at that flag lapel pin that he’s started wearing again (Hypocrit) and count the stars on it.

C’mon Barry…..keep sticking those feet in your mouth !!

Left by SB Smith on May 28th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Of course we won’t see this information on the front page of the New York Times. They just reserve that smear space for Hillary and McCain.

Left by dianne on May 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Dianne- are you serious? McCain gives a speech on nuclear non-proliferation contradicting the policies he’s had throughout his career; he renounces Bush’s policy on North Korea; and it’s discovered his economic adviser who crafted his mortgage crisis plan is in fact a paid lobbyist for a bank neck deep in the subprime scandal. And you think the NY Times should instead inform its readers about the military career of Obama’s grandfather?

Left by Preston on May 28th, 2008 at 8:34 pm

SB Smith,
B-HO has introduced a new flag pin, so he doesn’t have to explain his schtoopid comment.

Left by no2liberals on May 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm

preston- you wildly exaggerate mccain deviations and want to ignore blatant lies by obama. it appears you’ve been at this too long. please specify what in mccains speech contradicts his career-long positions on non-proliferation. bush’s new policy toward the north koreans is soft and so mccain stays consistent; that’s hardly news. are you actually suggesting that ubs is guilty of some sort of wrong-doing with respect to predatory lending? please clarify what makes them “neck deep in the subprime scandal.”

let’s get back to the subject at hand and simplify so your head doesn’t explode: mccain demonstrates understanding of the ever-changing world via policy positions. obama makes shit up to get votes.

Left by adam on May 29th, 2008 at 11:09 am

I really dont know why people are making a big deal out of this? i really dont get it. Obama’s great uncle is not running for president by the way.

Left by chris on May 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am

Adam, it’s not complicated. If I’m running for President and it’s time to form a Federal policy to address the subprime loan crisis I’m not likely to turn to my adviser who is simultaneously being paid to represent a bank that has lost TEN BILLION DOLLARS in the subprime crisis. You think that would be particularly true for a politician who has been the country’s scold on issues of corruption and influence in government.

As for nuclear non-proliferation: if McCain felt, as I do, that this is the greatest national security threat that our country faces he probably wouldn’t spend his career kicking Russia in the nuts (for instance, wanting to kick them out of the G-8) if he plans on kissing their ass to get them to help us keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists.

Similarly, in North Korea, McCain wants to return US to the failed policies of Bush’s first term which lead to N. Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. It took 6 years for Bush to realize that saber rattling wasn’t an effective strategy against a country that could destroy Seoul or Tokyo- in the meantime N. Korea became a nuclear distribution hub for the world’s worst governments. With the idea that the only way that terrorists can truly harm this country is by acquiring nuclear weapons I want a country that’s more interested in solving the problem than grabbing his jock.

These are real issues from just the last week that will affect our lives. Whether or not (at the worst case) Obama’s grandfather stretched the truth in his war stories or Obama inflated the heroics of his kin- well- not so much.

(And all of that was just last week. To talk about today we could get into McCain embarrassing himself with his ignorance of troop levels even as he’s trying to take a shot at Obama.)

I understand that the right doesn’t have too many issues they can count on right now. But isn’t it just embarrassing to bring up the critical issue of Obama’s grandfather or Rachel Ray’s scarf?!?

Left by Preston on May 30th, 2008 at 9:47 pm

if we want to talk about “emabarrassing”, obama is the ideal topic. his campaign is a daily clinic on how to motivate white guilt for votes.

i am, however, extremely glad to see you want to divert to real issues and though we may be off topic, i’ll endulge. mccain has suggested little to address what you call “the subprime mortgage crisis”. he wants to punish predatory lending and he wants creditors to work with borrowers to help people who aren’t beyond help. basically, the would-be “federal policy” amounts to enforcing the law and acknowledging a trend. this is not a scandal and i laugh at those that feel mccain needs sen. gramm to help him take this position. create headlines much?
yeah i got it buddy, you want the american president to schmooze the morally corrupt russian regime so they won’t sell their nukes to terrorists . sounds real promising… did you ever ask yourself why mccain is troubled by the russian influence at the g8? perhaps you should. did it ever occur to you that the american president shouldn’t have to kiss anyones ass to prevent the end of the world?
actually, the oppression/isolation of 25 million north koreans has “lead to n. korea’s development of nuclear weapons,” but that’s semantics, correct? i don’t think obama’s plan to take kim jong-il to coldstone will yield much better results. as for posturing with the old scrotum shift(coupled with clear expectations), it’s cold war record suggests it would have the intended effect.
rachel ray just doesn’t register on my schedule and all the proof already exists to show obama to be a liar, so i’ll leave their antics to you to spin. just don’t expect informed folks to be listening. as for your “move along, there’s nothing to see here” post, there’s no mccain scandal you or keith olbermann can create that changes your soft, rookie, racialist presidential candidate.

Left by adam on June 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pm

did it ever occur to you that the american president shouldn’t have to kiss anyones ass to prevent the end of the world?

Wow.

Aside from the fact that diplomacy isn’t ‘kissing someone’s ass’ I have to express my shock that you feel that preventing the end of the world is a goal you have such disregard for.

Left by Preston on June 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm

i’ll take that as a no, it never occurred to you.

kissing russia’s ass was your poorly-phrased rhetoric, with respect to mccain. i know what diplomacy is; the appeasment of the morally bankrupt that your ilk calls for is hardly that. me not jumping on your spineless bandwagon is shocking, but you sure seem ok with the russians allowing terrorists to gain access to their nuclear arsenal???

Left by adam on June 2nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm

Diplomacy is appeasement? Seriously, what planet do you live on?

I guess we should have tried Reagan, Nixon, and Kennedy for treason.

Left by Preston on June 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 am

i know what diplomacy is; the appeasment of the morally bankrupt that your ilk calls for is hardly that.

seriously, can you read?

Left by adam on June 3rd, 2008 at 8:20 am

Ah, diplomacy — the art and practice of conducting negotiations.

In order for there to be effective diplomacy, both sides must usually be willing to cede to some of the other side’s demands.

The problem with negotiating with terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations is that there are only a few things that they demand, and on which they are not willing nor going to cede:

1) the annihilation of Israel.
2) death to Jews and infidels (who do not submit to Islam)
3) Sharia law in a world-wide Caliphate.
2) the death of Western culture

I’m not willing to concede a single one of those points to Iran, Iraq, or Syria. Which one(s) are you willing to cede in a negotiation?

Left by Robbie Cooper on June 3rd, 2008 at 8:49 am

Got something you want to say?

Quicktags:


Notes:

You have 10 minutes after you submit your comment to edit it. Simply click the E(dit) link above the countdown-counter at the bottom of your comment. You can only edit a comment from the same IP address from where the original comment was submitted.

If your comment does not appear immediately, it has been sent to the moderation queue for approval.

Your comment either contained more than 2 hyperlinks, or it used a word(s) that are on my Spam blacklist. Comments awaiting moderation will usually be approved within a day.

And, being that it's my blog and all...I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.