I think it is important to get on to the public record my response to Mark's efforts to undermine my credibility by suggesting that I called myself a "close friend" of young Obama, which I have not, and then using this lie as a leverage point for attacking my overall credibility. Strictly speaking, I have written that "I certainly considered him a friend, a confidant and a political ally in the larger struggle against poverty and oppressive social systems."
Here's my response to Mark, a response that he did not allow to be published on his website. I've cleaned it up to catch the typos, but it is substantially the way I wrote it yesterday:
Let’s get real here. First, you are lying when you write that I claimed Obama was a “close friend.” I never used those words. You use them, however, to make it look like the reality of the situation was in conflict with my own stated story. You are actually making up a statement from me…which I consider to be dishonest journalism. It is shocking to me that you accuse Fox News with promoting make believe and yet you make up the concept that I once said Obama was a “close friend.” What you do in your article is make a false claim about what I’ve said and then turn around to make it look like I have exaggerrated my contacts with young Obama – which I have not.
Chandoo is not a reliable source to attack my testimony – something you leave out of your report drawn from Ron Kessler’s article. Even worse, you left off the first part of the Chandoo quote which verifies I was in the room and that Chandoo considers me a credible source.
“If that’s what John Drew said, that’s what he said,” Chandoo commented.
I don’t see how you can leave out that quote. What is amazing is that Chandoo verified that he knew me and that we met together that evening. The smart thing would have been for Chandoo to claim he never knew me at all. He failed to do that. In this sense, I see my story collaborated. You, however, suggest my story is uncollaborated and dubious. If I had simply made up a story of arguing with young Obama, then don’t you think Chandoo would have said that?
You also lie when you write that Chandoo is a “former” Obama associate. You know from the article itself that Chandoo still sees Obama fairly frequently…at least at White House events. Mark, I can’t make these things up. You are really out and out distorting the historical record by making up a strawman comment from me and not telling your readers the whole story about what Chandoo has said in that Kessler article.
Next, my story isn’t “ancient.” My article describing meeting and debating young Obama came out in American Thinker in February 2011. I was only interviewed on the Michael Savage show last week. Fox News has only last week even acknowledged that I exist and that my story is available to scholars and opposition researchers.
Finally, you go out of your way to make it look like I’ve been inappropriately pushing my story when, in truth, what is shocking about my story is that it was not immediately picked up in 2008 when I first went public with it. Since then, however, my story has been covered in books by Michael Savage, Paul Kengor, Stanley Kurtz and Jack Cashill.
For you to suggest that my story has only been featured in “radical right-wing rags and Internet backwater rabble” strikes me as extremely odd when it has also been featured in major books produced by big name publishers.
All in all, the gap between your take on my story and the reality of the story is pretty stark.
I really think you owe me and your readers an apology and you ought to correct your story to reflect the reality of the situation. To claim, as you do, that I ever said I was a “close friend” of Obama is an obvious falsehood, a falsehood that you use to embarrass me in front of my family and my business clients – many of who are liberals or independents.
I respectfully request that you change your story to make it clear that I have never said what you are claiming I said in your article above. In addition, I want to ask that you add the full comment from Chandoo so your readers can see how it collaborated my story enough for Kessler to write it and for Newsmax to publish it. My business is dependent on my reputation for honesty and integrity. For you to make up and print obviously false information about me strikes me as deeply unfair.
MARK'S REBUTTAL IS BELOW:
John, this is getting tedious. You cannot continue to use my web site as your platform, particularly when you keep repeating the same arguments that have already been hashed over to death. Get your own blog.
As for your complaint about whether you said Obama was a “close friend,” here is what you said about it:
“I certainly considered him a friend, a confidant…”
So you may not have used the word “close” but “confidant” implies the same thing. At least to me. I don’t have any confidants who are not also close friends (and that’s as close as you’re gonna get to a correction).
I also find it curious that you’ve spent so much time and energy bitching about the word “close” on an obscure blog, but have ignored the far more misleading assertion that you and Obama were “college mates” that appeared on a far more read web site, Fox News.
As to your complaint about the age of your story, it did not begin in February 2011, as you state above. It goes back to 2008. You have acknowledged that yourself. So this story, in news terms, is ancient.
You are welcome to comment on anything else I write so long as your comment is civil, relevant, and reasonably concise. But this topic is closed due to boredom.
MY RESPONSE TO MARK:
What?! How is “confidant” the same thing as “close.? I can’t take you seriously any more. In your article above, you say I claimed to be both a “close friend” and a “confidant.” Right? You can be a confidant with someone you just met in an elevator in Las Vegas. The larger issue is that you made up a false claim from me – on purpose – to discredit me. You dehumanized me and didn’t even consider the damage you might be doing to me, my family and my business. For you to lie about what I said, in my view, totally destroys your credibility regarding everything else you write on this blog including your attacks on Fox Nation. I’ve demonstrated that your readers cannot trust you to provide honest, trustworthy information. I NEVER claimed I was a “close friend” of young Obama. NEVER.
ANOTHER RESPONSE TO MARK AND SLARTBARTFEST:
Come on. The dictionary definition shows I was on the mark using the world confidant in the sense that I considered young Obama a political associate in the larger political fight.
I think the public agrees that I’ve proven both Slartibartfast and Mark to be liars, liars who are willing to make up quotes and claims that I have supposedly asserted through my own language.
Frankly, I think that is libelous. Even as a public figure, I know that you are not supposed to knowingly lie about me in a highly visible public form.
Making up false quotes or claims strikes me as a violation of law. Whatever the faults of Fox News, they have never made up a quote and claimed I said it. Fox News has never asserted that I claimed something which I did not.
Fox News does not assert that I ever said or claimed I was a "close friend" of young Obama. Mark does. That is why Mark is a hypocrit. Slartibartfest, a Ph.D. in math from Duke University, has also been caught asserting I said I was "the best graduate student in the nation," but now he cannot prove I ever said either. (If you want to check out Kevin Kesseler "Slartibartfest" Kesseler's one page website, then you can see it here at Bespoke Modeling.) This is typical for the left. You don’t care how much you lie or who you hurt as long as you are protecting President Obama.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
20 comments:
John,
Well, I guess your blatant sexism got you banned at the Fogbow (too bad, I found your antics there most amusing)--I'm sure you're happy with that turn of events... it lets you play the victim card of which you are so fond. I just thought I'd see if your comments regarding your blog being uncensored are true (don't worry, I'll cross-post this at the fogbow, just in case... ;-)).
I saw you over at newscorpse--trying to "correct" Mark (with the same debunked nonsense you kept repeating at the Fogbow) while arguing that you had no responsibility to correct inaccuracies on Fox Nation. That's a pretty hefty bit of cognitive dissonance there, isn't it?
As I understand it, I'm on a temporary ban at Fogbow. I'll drop in once in a while when I have fresh news.
You have to admit Mark at News Corpse made a fatal error when he wrote that I claimed to be a "close friend" of Obama. That was an utter lie.
It reminds me of how Bob Ross at Fogbow challenged me to prove I had met historian David J. Garrow. Even photographic evidence was not enough to satisfy Ross. It was laughable. You are always welcome to post here without censorship.
As a conservative, I buy into the idea that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and that censorship leads to dictatorsip.
I'm pretty sure that "confidant" and "close friend" have connotatively identical meanings in the English language. Just sayin'...
John,
I agree with Liz. Characterizing this as "an utter lie" is ridiculous and you know it (or you should). I hate to tell you, but Bob Ross was just making fun of you--that's the kind of challenge the birthers are always making. Like demanding President Obama's birth certificate after he has already released it. Twice. (Fun fact: the first birther demands for President Obama's birth certificate came after he had already released it.) That you completely missed his sarcasm is only indicative of how self-absorbed you are. By the way, I don't really consider you a conservative--I consider you a sufferer of Obama Derangement Syndrome. The only case I know of involving someone who has actually met the president--fascinating. In regard to the Fogbow--I hope your ban is indeed temporary--and I believe your sexist comments merited the temporary ban--and said as much on the thread discussing you (I assume you've been reading it). As I'm guessing you're still just paying attention to my last sentence, I have a question: what are the definitions of the terms "socialist", "Marxist", and "Marxist-Leninist" and how are any of these philosophies eviced by the president's policies?
- Slartibartfast
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I've never claimed I was a "close friend." I've been very honest that I met Obama only a handful of times. Mark at News Corpse deserved to be embarrassed for lying about what I said to score points for the liberal left. As far as I'm concerned his lie has destroyed the credibility of his website.
How are you doing on improving your website? I'm serious about encouraging you. I've always been a fan of math models. One of the secrets of my success is that I visualized my thesis as an equation when so many other graduate students failed to think so rigorously.
You and I both know that you are not so great at picking up social cues. In real life, you're an unmarried man with a math Ph.D. in his 40s. I'm guessing you are still living with your parents. :-) I embarrassed Ross by pointing out the silliness of his response to obvious evidence. He believes in a theory of truth that seems to have no room for the use of plausibility (common sense) as a way to save time. I used to be an unmarried Ph.D. just like you. Trust me. You can improve your social skills and you will get better at picking up on the social cues. One of the tricks is to realize that you really aren't so different from other people.
Here's another tip. I know nbc is a male. I was calling him a girl to tease him... I know you don't watch much television. If you do, check out the show Scrubs. In my recent Fogbow comments I'm being like Dr. Cox calling J.D. girl names because he is such a hopeless wimp. I thought it was funny and accurate.
Here are the working definitions I used in the Ron Kessler article.
Socialist: Someone who believes it is better to have government plan and control the national economy and distribute income in a manner that promotes equality of results. This is the point of view that even Remnick admits characterized young Obama and his Oxy friends.
Marxist: A Marxist is someone who applies the key concepts developed by Karl Marx to everyday political life including surplus value, class conflict, the falsehood of religion, alienation, false consciousness, scientific socialism, the inevitability of revolutions, the inevitability of an eventual Communist state of economy and society, a view that the economy controls our social and intellectual lives and faith that human relations will eventually be conducted entirely without the use of private property and the profit motive.
Marxist - Leninist: This is someone who not only believes and applies Marxist thought, but someone who also believes we need to have a highly trained Marxist elite that will educate the workers and lead them more quickly into socialism and eventually a Communist form of society.
For Remnick to suggest that young Obama and his friends - especially, Caroline Boss - were not doctrinaire demonstrates a profound disconnect from reality. I wish Remnick had taken the time to interview me. I would have happily set the record straight.
John,
You may be a fan of math models, but you and I both know that you don't understand them (let alone how to build or use them). "I visualized my thesis as an equation" What does that even mean? If you saw your thesis as an equation, show us the equation (you are really bad at showing your work--if that's how you did it in your high school calculus class, I'm surprised you passed...). That's how I know (one of the reasons, anyway) that while you may be able to speak some "pseudo-math", you are unlikely to understand more than a "pidgin" version of the language of mathematics.
On the topic of my personal life, I wont comment other than to say your accuracy is spotty at best.
Professionally, please keep giving me advice--it's hilarious! Just out of curiosity, what do you think my company does?
Regarding your definitions, I think your first definition is more appropriate to "communist" than "socialist", but the more important point is that you cannot explain how any of these philosophies are instantiated in President Obama's policies. Given your assertion that one cannot change from a radical ideology without some sort of conversion story and your assertion that there is no evidence that President Obama had such an epiphany combined with the observed fact that President Obama's policies have all been moderate (except for his right-wing stance on some civil-liberties and executive power issues), we are forced to conclude that President Obama was never a hardened radical--exactly what Remnick said in his book.
You are as awkward around the truth in political science as a 42-year-old bachelor math Ph.D. would be around a beautiful girl. You are a living symbol of what Rush Limbaugh calls the new "chickified guy, typical of the new castrati-libs out there today."
As for the larger issue, I define a Communist as simply a member of the Communist party.
I have never claimed young Obama was a Communist. I have only asserted that his Hawaiian mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and that his political mentor, Alice Palmer, attended Communist party events in the old USSR.
My thesis on child labor and child welfare programs was demonstrated through linear regression analysis. This is a robust practical technique used in the political science profession. I suspect, I know more about it, and that I'm better at it than you.
As a demonstration of your impractical - even lazy work ethic - I need to point out you took 11 years to earn your Ph.D. in math. (I did mine in Political Science in only 8.) You have received virtually no recognition for your work in your field. (I was one of nine winners of prestigious awards from the APSA in 1989.)
You show no job at all between December 2009 and July 2011 according to your LinkedIn profile.
Since your company's webiste has only one page, I'm guessing that you are still unemployed now. After looking through your one-page website, I think your so-called "company" Bespoke Modeling has zero customers, zero revenue and zero respect among other consulting businesses.
By the time I was your age, I was married, I had my thesis published as a book, I was an ex-Williams College professor, and I was the development director for one of Southern California's most glamorous performing arts centers. My wife and I were attending free performances of some of our nation's most talented performers. I had brought in millions in funding for various charitable insitutions.
Really, if you are such a winner, what were you doing between 2009 and 2011? The readers of APS want to know.
Hey John, you're in Verbie's latest funny over at the Fogbow:
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=7029&p=321464#p321219
Hi Slartibartfast:
I couldn't make the link work. Here's a great video that gives out the real names of the folks active at Fogbow including Adelante and Mimi. It is a treasure trove of reality for anyone wanting to learn more about the no talent losers who contribute to the Fogbow site. See, http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=045_1307642475
John,
You display self-centeredness bordering on narcissism in your assumption throughout your comment that your standards of success are the only ones that matter. Personally, all I want is to have my work judged on its merits and valued by the market--how do you think you would fare in those circumstances? Do you think that a lot of people are looking for over-the-hill political scientists that can do linear regression? I don't.
You are as awkward around the truth in political science as a 42-year-old bachelor math Ph.D. would be around a beautiful girl.
A couple of problems here. First, you assume that beauty is the only (or most important) criterion that I would have for a partner. In my experience, if a woman isn't reasonably intelligent and interesting to talk to, I really don't care how beautiful she is, I'm not interested in spending time with her. Second you assume that I couldn't have a beautiful, intelligent, interesting wife (with, say, a career that would support me in a lifestyle to which you probably wish you were accustomed) if that was what I desired--which is just not true. (You also assume that I'm interested in women, which happens to be true, but isn't really any of your business.) You really are a shallow person, aren't you?
You are a living symbol of what Rush Limbaugh calls the new "chickified guy, typical of the new castrati-libs out there today."
Hah! I used to listen to Rush when I was driving around town (so I could figure out how to debunk his arguments--it was never very hard...). Believe what you want--you seem to think that by making unsubstantiated suppositions about my personal life, you somehow weaken my arguments, which just goes to show that you are in no sense a scientist. What I say stands or falls on its merits, not my reputation (a scientist's reputation is always rooted in the merits of their work, not the other way around, as you seem to think).
As for the larger issue, I define a Communist as simply a member of the Communist party.
I have never claimed young Obama was a Communist. I have only asserted that his Hawaiian mentor Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist and that his political mentor, Alice Palmer, attended Communist party events in the old USSR.
This is what we call a straw man argument. You raise a bunch of irrelevancies and ignore my challenge to show where policies of the Obama White House could be considered socialist or any of the other terms you are bandying about. I'll take this as an admission that they haven't done anything that you can label radical and point out that, by your own argument, this means President Obama was not a radical back in the day (since he apparently never had a conversion). Hope you had fun being hoist by your own petard. ;-)
My thesis on child labor and child welfare programs was demonstrated through linear regression analysis. This is a robust practical technique used in the political science profession. I suspect, I know more about it, and that I'm better at it than you.
Well, well, well... where to start? I guess, if I am to demonstrate your statement to be incorrect, I'd better discuss linear regression analysis. As one of my professors used to say, classifying things as "linear" and "non-linear" is like classifying foods as bananas and non-bananas. Now, I don't doubt that you know a thing or two about bananas, but you should realize that I am an expert on food. Regression is a type of curve fitting--a mathematical technique whereby some metric is used to determine the member of a family of curves that "best" fits given set of data. Linear regression is a technique which (generally*) uses a metric called "least squares" to estimate a function of one (simple regression) or more (multiple regression) variables using a line (a very small family of curves). This technique is widely used not due to its accuracy or flexibility, but due to its simplicity. The reason that most people (like political scientists) don't use non-linear models is that they don't have access to them as they require a much more sophisticated understanding of the mathematics to implement. The kind of understanding that comes from, say, studying for 3 years with a student of Smale (Smale is one of the fathers of "chaos" math--something that has been a fascination of mine since high school...) and 10 years total of graduate studies in mathematics (not 11**). I'm guessing that linear regression is pretty much the only tool in your box as well--at least you seem to regard it as force majure... On the other hand, I've got
something far more flexible and powerful which can be used to do things of which you can't even conceive.
* no matter the metric, it is still regression--least squares is just the most commonly used.
** unlike you, I correct any factual inaccuracies that I notice in other's statements about me--flattering, unflattering, or neutral. I'll let your hilariously inaccurate guesses go uncorrected for the entertainment value ;-)
As a demonstration of your impractical - even lazy work ethic - I need to point out you took 11[sic] years to earn your Ph.D. in math. (I did mine in Political Science in only 8.) You have received virtually no recognition for your work in your field. (I was one of nine winners of prestigious awards from the APSA in 1989.)
I don't think getting a PhD in 8 years is very impressive. If I had stayed at Duke I'm sure that I would have had my PhD in 4 years--and my life would have had a very different path (and not a better one, in my opinion). On the other hand, my decade of study in math is, in my opinion, a unique strength of mine which has helped me develop synergy between several disparate talents. As for recognition, you're right--no one knows what I can do... except for me. I'm confident enough that all I want is to put my abilities to an empirical test and see how they measure up. We'll see what happens.
You show no job at all between December 2009 and July 2011 according to your LinkedIn profile.
And in your world, a hole like that (for which there would likely be no reasonable explanation) would be a big red flag (indicating a propensity to perish rather than publish). What you are failing to consider is what I've done with that time. If, for instance, I had something to show for my work over the last 2 years that gap changes from a liability into an asset (depending on the value of my work product).
Since your company's webiste has only one page, I'm guessing that you are still unemployed now. After looking through your one-page website, I think your so-called "company" Bespoke Modeling has zero customers, zero revenue and zero respect among other consulting businesses.
Again, you've made some bad assumptions--basing conclusions about my business on a part of my website that I've spend about 15 minutes total on (mostly because I wanted to take a look at my hosting company's site building interface) is not a good way to achieve accuracy.
By the time I was your age, I was married, I had my thesis published as a book, I was an ex-Williams College professor, and I was the development director for one of Southern California's most glamorous performing arts centers. My wife and I were attending free performances of some of our nation's most talented performers. I had brought in millions in funding for various charitable insitutions.
How wonderful for you. Personally, I'm rather proud of the position that I've gotten myself into. I find that I like it rather a lot.
Really, if you are such a winner, what were you doing between 2009 and 2011? The readers of APS want to know.
All three of them? Why should I tell them?
- Slartibartfest
Please, it is a simple question. If you are the sort of person who has the skills needed to undermine my take on young Obama's commitment to extremist ideology - then I think it is fair to ask why you show no jobs between 2009 and 2011?
I think this gap is your job record is a sign that you are a nut who deserves no credibility in a public debate. What are you hiding?
Johnnycakes,
Undermining your take on President Obama's commitment to radical Marxism (now or in the past) is not exactly difficult (and was thoroughly done on the thread on the Fogbow), nor is it my goal in posting here, but regardless it has nothing to do with what I've been doing for the last 2 years--it has to do with the merits of my (or others') arguments and your rebuttals (or, more accurately, lack of same...). Honestly, it's not really a secret what I've been doing over the last 2 years, I just think that it isn't relevant to what I and others have said regarding your assertions and that you probably find it mildly annoying that I wont tell you.
I thought I won the argument at Fogbow...that is why they banned me. The final straw was the Fogbower who didn't accept photographic evidence of my meeting historian David Garrow. Before I was banned, I made a convincing argument that my take on young Obama's ideological extremism was verified by the liberal author, David Remnick, in his book, The Bridge. My gosh, Obama's roommate - Hasan Chandoo - admitted he was a Marxist to Remnick. How much more confirmation do we need to see before you realize I'm telling the truth about young Obama's ideological extremism? Your reluctance to see reality helps me understand why you are unwilling to explain what you did to support yourself between 2009 and 2011. I'm guessing you were doing something that was what most of us consider deviant. Am I right? Why else is this gap in your employment record such a big secret?
You thought you won--that's funny! They banned you because of your blatant sexism not because (for instance) a quote of the passage in question by David Remnick shows that he completely disagrees with your assertion. Your argument about President Obama being an extremist might be more rational if you could point to any of his policies as "radical" or "leftist", but you seem completely unable to do so--why is that?
There is excellent material regarding the contemporary expressions of Obama's Marxist socialist perspective in Michael Savage's Trickle Up Poverty and Stanley Kurtz's Radical-In-Chief. Pointing out that women underperform men in math is hardly a sexist statement...it is a matter of fact. You have a Ph.D. in math and Millie Sloan Hotard only has a B.A. in math. She is married to an older man who owns a home in North Carolina, you are a 42 year-old single man without a job or a family. I would think that it is safe to say that if you were a woman you would not have gone as far as you did in math. The whole idea that I was banned from Fogbow because I pointed out the higher achievements of most men in math compare to most women in math is silly and ridiculous. They banned me when I caught Bob Ross asserting that photographic evidence of me standing right next to historian David Garrow was not proof that I really was interviewed by him. I was banned because I was winning the argument and demonstrating the weaknesses of the Fogbower community including Mike Dunsford's low self-esteem and failure to win a Ph.D. I pointed out your failure to get married and hold a job. I pointed out Anna Stoddard was a lousy journalist who make a bunch of silly mistakes. I pointed out that Remnick - a liberal author - writes Obama's Oxy roommate was a Marxist and a socialist and that Obama shared these views.
There is excellent material regarding the contemporary expressions of Obama's Marxist socialist perspective in Michael Savage's Trickle Up Poverty and Stanley Kurtz's Radical-In-Chief.
Pointing out that women underperform men in math is hardly a sexist statement...it is a matter of fact.
You have a Ph.D. in math and Millie Sloan Hotard only has a B.A. in math. She is married to an older man who owns a home in North Carolina, you are a 42 year-old single man without a job or a family. I would think that it is safe to say that if you were a woman you would not have gone as far as you did in math.
The whole idea that I was banned from Fogbow because I pointed out the higher achievements of most men in math compared to most women in math is silly and ridiculous.
They banned me at the moment when I caught Bob Ross asserting that photographic evidence of me standing right next to historian David Garrow was not proof that I really was interviewed by him. Bob Ross is a total Fogbow idiot.
I was banned because I was winning the argument and demonstrating the weaknesses of the Fogbower community including Mike Dunford's low self-esteem and failure to win a Ph.D. in his field of interest.
I pointed out your failure to get married and hold a job. I pointed out Anna Stoddard was a lousy journalist who make a bunch of silly mistakes. I pointed out that Remnick - a liberal author - writes Obama's Oxy roommate was a Marxist and a socialist and that Obama shared these views. The Fogbowers can't take the truth.
On the Fogbow, you posted the following: "Since high level performance in political science also requires superior math skills, I'm not at all surprised to see women underrepresented"
Which seems pretty sexist to me (as well as wrong)--regardless, the totality of your comments there were perceived as sexist* and thus a violation of the site rules (you didn't even bother to read them did you?).
* A judgement that I agree with, by the way.
I would also add that your statement only impeaches your own argument--as it is clear that you don't have superior math skills, you have declared yourself incapable of doing political science at a high level.
As I've said repeatedly, Bob Ross was making fun of you by making ridiculous requests and pointing out that your "evidence" doesn't come close to proving your claims (both in that particular and in general).
Remnick writes that President Obama was, at most, a Marxist in name only--I cannot believe that anyone who would consider themselves a serious scholar would so completely misrepresent his words as you have. That would be the polar opposite of truth.
- Kevin Kesseler AKA Slartibartfest
Bob Ross was not joking. He sincerely argued that I provided no proof of being interviewed by David Garrow even though I provided him with a photo of me and Garrow together. Ross's suggestion seemed to be that perhaps the liberal Garrow and the conservative John Drew just met casually at my home in Laguna Niguel. His comments - the last I responded to at Fogbow - struck me as evidence I had won the debate and had added in more evidence of loony, unhinged aspect of liberal thought.
If you can't trust your gut instincts about women and math, then you can trust your gut instincts about the meaning of a rare photo either.
My take on young Obama was confirmed by Remnick in the sense that Remnick is a liberal who nevertheless verified the central role of Caroline Boss and Hasan Chandoo in young Obama's life, verified that Boss was the president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance at Oxy and that Chandoo was a Marxist socialist.
I have pictures of me with Boss and letters from her demonstrating our relationship at the time of the debate I had with young Obama. To suggest that my story is not confirmed by Remnick strikes me as very odd. It makes sense that Obama supporters like Remnick, Boss and Chandoo would do everything in their power to minimize the ideological and programmatic nature of young Obama's ideological extremism. I have no particular axe to grind against Obama and my report on his ideological extremism is complex and difficult to simplify into a black and white story.
The larger issue, of course, is that I crushed the Fogbower by demonstrating Anna Stoddard's silly mistakes in her "Oh For Goodness Sak"e blog. I have exposed Bill Byran's illegal behavior in California as a lawyer. I have called attention to the gaps in your resume, the length of time it took you to complete your Ph.D. and your failure to mature as a normal man.
I have identified Mike Dunford's low-self-esteem and his failure to earn a Ph.D. in the field he loves - Zoology.
I demonstrated that Bob Ross had the common sense of a small child - a first grader. It was only at the point that I had fully embarrassed Ross that the Fogbow people pulled the plug. They could not deal with the evidence that my story was considered highly credible by an elite liberal author like David Garrow.
At this point, my blog post on the inept, discredited Fogbow folks ranks almost as high as their website itself if you Google "fogbow blog."
Meanwhile the best you can do in attacking me is to reveal to the world that I think men are better at math than women. Trust me. Most of us normal people think men are better at math than women. Women do have better soft skills than men. The liberals in your life are not your friends. They are screwing you with affirmative action and teaching you things about yourself which are disempowering you and turning you into a total, pathetic wimp.
Regards, John Drew
Post a Comment