HOAX: Obama: A British View (London Daily Mail Obama's Victory)
UPDATE: MARCH 14, 2009:
This issue can finally be put to rest. I have exchanged emails with Michael Coren, a columnist for the Toronto Sun (actually the Canadian Sun newspaper chain), and Canadian radio show host. On November 8, 2008, he wrote this column.
NOTE: The article starts with"A young student friend e-mailed me on Tuesday night." Many people assumed that the entire editorial was written by a "student friend" of his, but the student only wrote the first paragraph. The rest of the content is Coren's.
Here are two emails Coren sent me about the column:
From: Michael Coren [mailto:mcoren@sympatico.ca]Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 6:41 PMTo: jgoodell2@cox.netSubject: Re: Obama: British ViewThanks so very much. Not sure if I follow. I'm a weekly columnist for the Canadian Sun chain - about a dozen daily newspapers with a combined readership of well over a million - and this article appeared back in November. Not sure how or why it became so heavily distributed in the United States. As for its association with the Daily Mail, this is baffling. Someone told me Rush Limbaugh read it out - I seldom hear him so I don't know if it's true and he certainly didn't consult me. What do you mean by my student friend? This is merely a brief reference in a 560 word article. I've copied the full article below. By the way, it always amazes me how conspiracy theorists of left and right are so similar in their ways.Best wishes,Michael CorenFrom: Michael Coren [mailto:mcoren@sympatico.ca]Sent: Friday, March 14, 2009 4:21 AMTo: jgoodell2@cox.netSubject: Re: Obama: British ViewThanks so very much. Yes of course it's my column and of course you can quote me.Best wishes,Michael CorenMichael can be booked for public speaking via his website - www.michaelcoren.comJOIN FANS OF MICHAEL COREN ON FACEBOOK!
So, for now, let us conclude this by stating that the article in question should be called:
Here's the original blog entry I wrote about this in January:
I received an email with the heading mentioned in the title of this entry. (the email is reprinted below my comments).
I followed the instructions in the forwarded email and checked Google for "London Daily Mail Obama's Victory"
It’s not clear to me how Obama’s victory is a victory for Jeremiah Wright. Does Wright stand to benefit somehow? Is he getting a Cabinet seat?
I assume that the claim “a victory for Hollywood” means
only that the majority of Hollywood is Democratic, and hence would
claim victory when any Democrat earns office.
In
reality, Obama’s victory is a victory for the American public, who have
been able to go from killing blacks in the streets less than 40 years
ago to electing an African American to the highest office. Surely this
represents one of the greatest leaps in a nation’s maturity and
development that the world has ever witnessed. Also, seeing as how Obama
won a clear majority of American voters in every single demographic other
than white men over 60, it is truly a victory for the people of the
U.S.A. Finally, as when John F. Kennedy was elected, to whom Obama
draws so many comparisons, the American people have mandated change
from a government that was failing them in almost every respect. How can you not call it a victory for America when the voters are able to effect such dramatic change through the Democratic process?
UPDATE: March 13, 2009: I found the following information about the source of this article on (of all places) 'Moms for Sarah Palin'
-
-
So where's the link for this story in the 'London Daily Mail' then ?. Actually, this story comes from a columnmist in the Toronto Sun in Novemeber 2008
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2008/11/08/7344746-sun.html
There again, Sarah Palin probably thinks that London & Toronto are next to each other considering her appalling geographic knowledge. -
This is a typical Phishing article used to get someone's opinion circulated under the cover of one of England's best newspapers.
I E-mailed the London Daily Mail at ... feedback@dailymail.co.uk .. and received a reply from them that it was not written by them nor published by them.
One must always VERIFY stuff like this before posting it anywhere. To not do so is just plain wrong.
If one has an opinion on something like this, have the nerve to put your own name on it.
Do not hide behind the cover of a reliable source in order to give it an air of creditability.
for a true Daily Mail Article, read this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1125026/MAIL-COMMENT-Obamas-inauguration-lights-candle-hope--flame-felt-world.html -
To add to bahtah's comments...This is actually written by a person named Michael Coren who is an am radio 'personality' on a show named "Two Bald Guys With Strong Opinion" and hosts a show on a Christian-based Canadian television show in Toronto, Canada... never heard of him... but did a google on him.. per Wiki, he sounds like a real class act?!?!? But it is the kind of message that "Moms for Palin"-like groups want to hear. And as his history suggests (e.g. getting fired for having scripted guests), anything for ratings!
ORIGINAL EMAIL:
Obama: A British View
Whether you agree with this article or not, you have to agree that it is
very cleverly written. -
The Daily Mail ( UK ) wrote this editorial about Obama on 1/6/2009.
(confirmation, Google " London Daily Mail Obama's Victory")
Obama's Victory--A British view
A victory for the hysterical Oprah Winfrey, the mad racist preacher
Jeremiah Wright, the US mainstream media who abandoned any sense of
objectivity long ago, Europeans who despise America largely because they
depend on her, comics who claim to be dangerous and fearless but would not
dare attack genuinely powerful special interest groups. A victory for
Obama-worshippers everywhere. A victory for the cult of the cult. A man who
has done little with his life but has written about his achievements as if
he had found the cure for cancer in between winning a marathon and building
a nuclear reactor with his teeth. Victory for style over substance,
hyperbole over history, rabble-raising over reality.
A victory for Hollywood , the most dysfunctional community in the world.
Victory for Streisand, Spielberg, Soros, Moore, and Sarandon. Victory for
those who prefer welfare to will and interference to independence. For
those who settle for group think and herd mentality rather than those who
fight for individual initiative and the right to be out of step with meager
political fashion.
Victory for a man who is no friend of freedom. He and his people have
already stated that media has to be controlled so as to be balanced, without
realizing the extraordinary irony within that statement. Like most liberal
zealots, the Obama worshippers constantly speak of Fox and Limbaugh, when
the vast bulk of television stations and newspapers are drastically liberal
and anti-conservative. Senior Democrat Chuck Schumer said that just as
pornography should be censored, so should talk radio. In other words, one of
the few free and open means of popular expression may well be cornered and
beaten by bullies who even in triumph cannot tolerate any criticism and
opposition.
A victory for those who believe the state is better qualified to raise
children than the family, for those who prefer teachers' unions to teaching
and for those who are naively convinced that if the West is sufficiently
weak towards its enemies, war and terror will dissolve as quickly as the
tears on the face of a leftist celebrity.
A victory for social democracy even after most of Europe has come to the
painful conclusion that social democracy leads to mediocrity, failure,
unemployment, inflation, higher taxes and economic stagnation. A victory for
intrusive lawyers, banal sentimentalists, social extremists and urban snobs.
Congratulations America !
UPDATE: March 13, 2009: In fairness, the following sections are present in the Toronto Sun column, but have been removed most everywhere this is posted:
Also a defeat for one of the weakest presidential candidates in living memory.Why would anyone vote for a man who seemed incapable of outlining his policies and instead repeatedly emphasized a noble but, if we are candid, largely irrelevant war record?
He was joined by a woman who was defended so vehemently by her supporters when it was cuttingly evident that she is years away from being, and perhaps never will be, a serious candidate for senior national office.
Most of all it was a terrible defeat for democracy and the United States. A politician of nothing defeated a nothing politician and a credulous electorate screamed in adoration. I fear we will all suffer very much indeed.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2008/11/08/7344746-sun.html We are not at the Start of The Obama depression , a loss for America was the victory for all on welfare , welfare needs to be cut by 80%
Reply to this
Mark M. Lichterman is the author of the piece you commented on: HOAX: Obama; A British View. It was not difficult to find attribution for it. It is also not hard to find truth in it. Time will tell.
Reply to this
Thank you for providing that reference. I would have to disagree with you that the attribution is not hard to find. I searched for "London Mail", and "Obama: A British View" and dug very deep and found no link to Mr. Lictherman. Now that I know his name, and the original title of the article ("A Victory for Obama Worshippers"), it is easy to find the references. However there is no link between the article and the London Mail, and in fact, Lichterman's profile at author's den (http://www.authorsden.com/visit/author.asp?AuthorID=87241) indicates he was born in Chicago and currently lives in Westlake Village, California. It would appear that someone picked up his article and gave it a new (completely ridiculous) name and attributed to an incorrect source with the sole intention of making people think that Britain was unhappy with Obama. The article should be called "AuthorsDen.com: Obama: A Southern Californian's View". An article that was actually published in the London Mail is titled "Obama's inauguration lights a candle of hope - and its flame is being felt around the world" and can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1125026/MAIL-COMMENT-Obamas-inauguration-lights-candle-hope--flame-felt-world.html
Reply to this
I must apologize. I did not do quite enough research there. The link: http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=87241&id=45029 is an article written by Mark M. Lichterman in which he clearly states: "Here's an editorial from the London Daily Mail." So, in fact, it would appear that he is not the author of the piece. I have sent an email to Mr. Lichterman to verify this, but for the moment, we must assume that we are still without a single shred of proof that the article ever appeared in the London Daily Mail. In fact, we still don't know who wrote the article.
If anyone has more information, it would be most appreciated!! I'm only interested in discovering and revealing the truth.
I apologize for jumping the gun in my previous comment.
Jeremy
Reply to this
I received a reply from Mark Lichterman:
Hi Jeremy Goodell: I did not write the article. I do not remember how I received it but posted it as an article that appeared under my name, but I never represented that I was the writer of the article and I have no other information.
Reply to this
Bravo Jeremy Goodell! I'm so bloody tired of receiving this sort of propaganda. It's turning my stomach in so many ways. The fact that it’s shared from the mother (in her 80s) of a dear friend. I adore her, but it sickened me; And equally, that so many bloggers apparently agree & consider it share-worthy. It’s indicative that Americans really have become lazy ignorant masses. Worldwide news is obtained solely by email; One that falsifies it’s source & author. And they believe it - in spite of all reports to the contrary. The version I received included a name, though I checked it’s validity & found it too was falsified. Some sites have suggested the source to be the Toronto Sun, though their article clearly states it as being received via email. (The content seems more Rove-ian than Canadian - or British.) Authors of such compositions generally don’t sign their work. Burglars don’t ring door bells & rapists generally don’t ask for a second date. They just begin their next work.
I’m guessing those hailing the content are among those who don’t research this - or much else. Hopefully some will actually google Europe - Obama’s Victory, and read genuine news from reputable news sources, such as in Britain's BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7837279.stm
Or the London Times:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/ article5087886.ece
A CNN release shares authentic quotes (accurately named) from reputable sources worldwide: Germany, Al Jazeera, Israel, Jordan, China, Asia, Kenya, Japan, Russia, Australia
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/international.press.reaction/
But, I doubt they will.
It’s been said that Democrats would be the same had they lost the election. That’s not what happened when the Supreme Court decision was that Florida cease counting votes. Gore was very graceful. While Gore may have lost the election (or had it taken from him,) just think of his contribution since. He's led the global green movement. It’s said the best revenge is living well. He's helped us all do there. Such sweet irony.
Reply to this
Funny you should mention Al Gore, I was just thinking about him this morning, wondering if he had it to do over again, if he would trade an Oscar, a Grammy and a Nobel Peace Prize for the Presidency.
I've long believed that Democrats and Republicans typically respond differently to situations (victories, defeats, etc). Someone told me it's because most Democrats are liberals who are open-minded and therefore less likely to disparage the opinions of others. It makes sense. Conversely, conservatism typically equates with close-mindedness, which in turn, is associated with intolerance, and in extreme cases, fear and hate.
Reply to this
Strangely, I've heard another liberal say very much the same thing whereas I learned the differences between liberals and conservatives to be quite different: Conservatives react slowly and deliberately after weighing the long-term effects of decisions while liberals let their emotions contol them and jump about hysterically trying to write new laws or throw money at every situation without considering the long-term effect of what they are doing. I believe that the terms began by categorizing those who were against enacting laws as a knee-jerk reaction to every wrongful situation that occurred during the industrial revolution and those who liberally tried to change or add laws to cover every grievance without respect to its far-reaching affect.
Reply to this
It is interesting to me that a commentary (upon which I did not comment)published on my blog 2 months ago would get any comment from a fellow blogger after such a length of time. However, I am grateful for the research you'd done and the explanation.
"Um, didn’t we just oust an Administration who eliminated due process and Constitutional protections, instituted torture as a standard interrogation method, and set up secret prisons outside of the U.S. to facilitate this torture?" Answer, NO! We didn't but the media would have you think so. Due process has always been legally limited to citizens and criminals caught within or whose crimes took place within the physical confines of the USA. Most of the terrorists held at Getmo were taken in combat situations in foreign countries where we could have legally killed them rather than imprison them. Only American Citizens have previously been "entitled" to constitutional protections. Getmos aren't. A great many countries have secret prisons, we do not. ALL of ours, where ever, are accounted for and have been visited by both UN officials and silly, moronic media types form several countries. It is still debatable as to whether waterboarding is torture (it would be to me!) or not. Nothing at all listed in the military manuals could actually be considered torture. In fact, we treat our Getmos awfully well even by US standards. Heck, some states won't even allow inmates to recieve pics or books or outside monies or any other form of care-package from relatives. The getmos get much more. If our state prisons are worse than getmo, then why don't the media concentrate on them? Because it is not politically expedient and embarrasses no one. Look inot these things for yourself. The Military Code of Justice is rigorously fair, like it or not. Been there, done all these things, seen all that, etc.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment within your blog.
PLB
Reply to this
I found the comments quite fascinating. Apparently, it is more important how the opinion piece is distibuted and attributed than the actual content of the opinion piece. I find this quite remarkable. Talk about Conspiracy Theories! I have been directed to the actual opinion piece and find it quite incisive, and one that cuts to the heart of the matter. We (the American people) after years of unrelenting disparagemnt and ridicule of President Bush were offered The Altenative, The Anti-Bush - a man who had NO executive experience, a man who had virtually no experience whatsoever, save for being a dirty politician who learned his trade in the Chicage Democratic Political Machine (which gave us Rod Blagojevich (if your memory goes back that far, which I am sure that it does not (why would you want to remember such unpleasant things as that?))). A politiician who would pressure Major Newspapers to pressure the Criminal Justice system to relaese sealed testimony regarding his opponent's divorce for the sole and exclusive purpose of using that information against them - to embarrass them, to ridicule them, to shame them - so that he could win an election. Give me a break! Sarah Palin has more Executive experience than Barak Obama. Sarah Palin has more understanding of America, of what it means to be an American than Barak Obama ever did or ever will. Sarah Palin is a self made woman. A true American success story. Barak Obama is, as the opinion piece deftly points out, a figment of his own imagination. Oh! I also found it interesting that self assured, smug, arrogant liberals found this controversy the perfect opportunity to opine upon their rather obvious moral superiority to conservatives - the standard "we are open-minded and they are narrow-minded and intolerant (which, of course, leads to fear and hate)" and God Forbid - being against homosexuals getting married or being against those wonderful and industrious and helpful and happy illegal alien Mexicans who are working below minimum wage so that their children may steal a free education from the American Taxpayer and their elders may steal Social Security benefits from the American Taxpayer. Do you smug, arqaogant, superior self satisfied liberals have any idea idea how trite you are? I reckon not.
Reply to this
Thanks Uncle Eddie for your unbiased viewpoint.
Seriously though, this is not the first time someone has made reference to "conspiracy theorist" with regard to this blog entry. I'm a little confused by this. Is it me who's a conspiracy therorist for wanting to get to the truth behind this alleged London Daily Mail article? I don't get that.
Let me reiterate my role in this. I received an email with this editorial, claiming to be from the London Daily Mail. It even includes instructions for verifying the source. Of course, I attempted to do so. And, I found that there was no such editorial ever printed in the London Daily Mail. It took several months, but the editorial source was finally located as The Toronto Sun.
My problem with this scenario is that some PERSON or GROUP OF PERSONS decided to take this content and falsify its source. Saying this does not make me a conspiracy theorist. This is fact. If the editorial were accidentally attributed to the wrong source, then it certainly wouldn't have included this:
The Daily Mail ( UK ) wrote this editorial about Obama on 1/6/2009.
(confirmation, Google " London Daily Mail Obama's Victory")
This is clearly a premeditated attempt to mislead.
I don't understand why people give me a hard time for wanting to expose this. I don't give a hoot what the damn content is. If it is distributed under false pretenses, then it makes me mad. The mass of Internet users appear to just accept whatever shows up in their inbox, especially if someone has included instructions for verification.
I don't consider this a "conspiracy". I consider it to be a "lie".
I also don't care whether you like what it says or not. That's beside the point. My point is that this editorial piece received far more exposure than it otherwise would have because of the explicit deception.
Jeremy
Reply to this
You might be interested to know that this blog entry has been viewed 2055 times in the month of March, the vast majority of viewers coming from the search engines. I'm pleased to see that so many people are doing this search and not trusting blindly in the stated source.
Keep it up web surfers! Question EVERYTHING you read on the Internet.
Jeremy
Reply to this
Glad to see the research you did. Frankly as a conservative I find the original article much closer to my own views. The paragraphs that were cut off couldn't be more correct and in my less than humble opinion give more credence to the sentiments expressed in the paragraphs above them.
The whole liberal conservative arguments are a bit of a distraction from your original purpose but the posting clearly states your own bias and set that part of the discussion in motion.
Reply to this
Well from what I've seen it COULD have been in The Daily Mail.
This seems to be a classic case of increasing the status by association. The bigger the paper the more weight it carries.
Unfortunate that it wasn’t credited to the proper person to begin with. It really makes little difference.
The point being is that it was from a “foreigner” who apparently can see more clearly than the Obamabots in America. The looter-in-chief has no cloths.
And it is well written.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
-Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons, I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum. "
-Eric Holder
Reply to this
Obama deserves respect for his trying to do something good for his country. From the film about him (downloaded at http://www.rapidsharemix.com )I learnt that his life was far from being easy and safe, still he didn't lose hope for better future not only for himself, but for the whole USA.
Reply to this
Maybe Obama’s election victory will write America’s modern history, hopefully he can make America, make the world more peaceful. However, it is too early to have conclusions right now and no matter what, history is impartial. However, I think he will make the right decisions!
Reply to this
Mr. Speaker, we are a blessed Nation. We have not suffered another attack on our soil since September 11, and we are grateful. We have killed or captured dozens of members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Our military and intelligence forces are working both hard and smart.
Reply to this