Obama's pesky loose ends:
By Erik Rush
As this columnist has indicated previously, for reasons that beg deeper analysis, grave and troubling facts pertaining to President-elect Barack Obama were kept from the electorate by the establishment press. It is therefore arguable that had some or all of these come to light and been scrutinized with half the alacrity as was Sarah Palin's wardrobe, Obama may never have been elected at all. Some of the aforementioned troubling facts are now represented as loose ends that may or may not present difficulties for Mr. Obama.
Shortly before the election, Obama traveled to Hawaii (ostensibly to visit his dying grandmother), after which the governor sealed his official birth records. As the reader may be aware, the location of Obama's birth was an issue throughout the campaign, as only natural-born Americans are qualified to serve as president of the United States.
There are, despite the establishment press' absolute refusal to acknowledge same, lawsuits in progress that challenge Obama's qualifications to serve as president given the location of his birth, which some assert is the African nation of Kenya, from whence his purported biological father hailed. (It has also been suggested that his biological father was actually his Marxist mentor and family friend Frank Marshall Davis; the assertion being that his mother and Davis believed the young Barack would fare better in American society being half African rather than simply half black, hence the naming of Barack Sr. as his father.)
Now, these are not instances of resourceful malcontents and racists desperately grasping at any straw they can in order to make things unpleasant for the president-elect. A suit has been filed by Alan Keyes, who was an ambassador to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations under President Ronald Reagan and a former presidential candidate. Keyes' lawsuit contends that documentation presented by the Obama campaign to certify his eligibility "cannot be viewed as authoritative" inasmuch as it states that Obama was born, but it does not indicate where or who was present – including the absence of a delivering physician's signature.
Further, the issue of Obama's inextricable ties to unregenerate domestic terrorist William Ayers is also "coming home to roost," to borrow a phrase from Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah ("God damn America") Wright. To add insult to injury, this nauseating creature (Ayers) began making the rounds of daytime talk shows and speaking venues shortly after the election, attacking Obama detractors for scrutinizing the president-elect's relationship with him during the campaign. His words and comportment bespeak a relationship with Obama that confirms the allegations made by said detractors while attempting to validate Ayers' past actions.
Obama's claim that Ayers was "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" was a bald-faced lie: Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation with Ayers, which is in itself highly questionable given the quasi-Marxist aims of that body, i.e., insinuating far-left doctrine into the curricula of American public schools. Ayers, his wife (fellow terrorist and Weather Underground member Bernadette Dohrn) and the Obamas are self-described "family friends." Earlier this week, it was learned that Ms. Dorhn is hailing Obama's election as a return to and validation of earlier times (i.e., the '60s), with an unspoken vindication of the Weathermens' terrorist actions and mandate for a Marxist agenda.
"He's [Obama] been vetted and vetted and vetted, and there was nothing there to throw at him. … It is worth noting that that [the question of Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers] was rejected by almost all sectors of the population, including independent voters."
No doubt it's very reassuring to people such as Dohrn that any questions about Obama were "rejected by almost all sectors of the population, including independent voters," but the fact is, due to an almost conspiratorial deference on the part of the establishment press, Obama was never properly vetted by anyone save for the alternative media and certain informed individuals.
I don't think there's a conservative alive who didn't want to see the "race barrier" broken at some point as regards the presidency. The fact that our first black president will be a man who is dangerously inexperienced, a dedicated Marxist and a mealy-mouthed, practiced liar, however, remains surreal and nightmarish.
14 comments:
Re: "Dedicated Marxist."
Do you seriously believe that Obama plans to eliminate American capitalism in favor of collectivism?
Do you seriously believe I wrote that article?
What I do believe is that Obama as a dangerous big city con man who has not given us a chance to know what evil lurks in his intentions.
I also want to see his birth certificate.
Don't you believe that a "carefully vetted" blog should refrain from posting such libelous defamation of our President-Elect? WorldNetDaily is the epitome of yellow journalism, similar in journalistic integrity to The National Equirer and Accuracy In Media.
I would rather leave your post here and expose it for what it is. I'll bet that you are a liberal. I say that because of the trademark insult and ad hominem attack. Liberals don't think or analyze they just use low level debate tactics that would disqualify them for the grade school debate team.
If you can point out something inaccurate I would appreciate your contribution to accuracy. If all you can do is "label" the source with a derogatory comment your comments are not welcome.
You might also consult an article on this blog entitled "Spot false arguments and make strong ones." A free hint on how to improve your posts. You will note that ad hominem arguments are at the lower end of the scale only one step above name calling which is the other part of your content. Do you honestly expect to get somewhere with a post like that when many of the readers on this blog are Mensa members?
In case you need a little help with your Latin: An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
YOU WROTE "An ad hominem argument, consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."
If you classify my last post as an "ad hominem" argument, then please advise: What person did I attack? (The term "person" in common usage means an individual human being.)
I previously addressed the "factual claim" of Obama being a "dedicated Marxist," but you evaded my question. If you care to return to issue at hand, then do YOU seriously believe that Obama plans to eliminate American capitalism in favor of collectivism?
Second question: Do YOU consider WND to be a credible source?
Ok, nit picker looking for wiggle room. Are you a law student? Just substitute "source" for "person" and plead guilty.
It isn't that I evaded the "Marxist" comment. I didn't make it. Take it up with the author of the article, not me.
As to my belief; the evidence is that Obama and most of his supporters and cohorts are at least "in tension" with capitalism if not attempting to overthrow it. Or to state it a different way I think Obama is a socialist to whatever degree he can get away with it.
As to WND; I have my doubts about all media outlets and WND is not at the top of trusted sources but is way above the NYT.
"Do YOU seriously believe that Obama plans to eliminate American capitalism in favor of collectivism" is a yes/no question. I asked if you seriously believed it, not if you made it. If you have any degree of confidence less than "seriously believe," then the appropriate answer is "no."
Secondly, Wikipedia makes it clear that "ad hominem" attacks refer to people, not other sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem):
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."
Wikipedia links "person" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person, which states "The term person in common usage means an individual human being."
For example: Doubting the veracity of a National Enquirer article, because of the characteristics of the National Enquirer, would hardly constitute an ad hominem attack.
I am a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer. Accuracy is important to me.
To turn the tables: Wikipedia? Why would you turn to such a discredited liberal fountain of misinformation as Wikipedia?
Didn't you notice that my quote was from Wikipedia?
Yes or no is another low grade debate tactic unworthy of intelligent discourse. I gave you "my" answer not the one you prescribed for me to give.
The subject isn't the definition of ad hominem it is the rules for logic. You violated the rules of logic and then did a bad lawyer defense for the violation. One does not gain credibility by attacking the source or the person. That tactic is seen as "illogical". Refute the point of the argument not the source of the argument if you want intellectual respect.
Who's Air Force? Ours? If so you don't represent them very well.
I suspect you have seen my mini-bio on this blog and since I do not hide behind a false identity all my bona fides are easily vetted.
I simply asked you to disclose your confidence in wnd's assessment of Obama as a "dedicated Marxist," by rephrasing the question. Yet you pussyfoot around the issue, which seems oddly appropriate. I hope we can refrain from tap-dancing, and answer each other's relevant questions with complete candor. Let me ask you directly WITHOUT rephrasing the question: Do YOU believe Obama is a dedicated Marxist or not? If so, then what definition of "dedicated Marxist" are you using.
I commit to the definition that a dedicated Marxist plans to eliminate capitalism in favor of collectivism. Anything less is hardly a dedicated Marxist. Anything less merely places him at one of the infinite points in the mixed economy spectrum between unregulated capitalism and complete collectivism.
My questions aren't difficult, especially for anyone wishing to engage in a cordial discussion (as I had hoped). I don't know why you use red herrings in evading the primary issue. For example: Either you consider Wikipedia to be a valid source for the definition of "ad hominem," or you do not. First YOU cite it, and then when I also cite it, you denigrate it as being "liberal."
Another example: You posted "Refute the point of the argument not the source of the argument if you want intellectual respect." But in this case, no argument was made. WND posted an unsubstantiated conclusion that Obama is a "dedicated Marxist," not an argument. I merely asked if you agreed with the wnd conclusion. While the credibility of a person does not affect the validity of his argument, the credibility of a source DOES affect the value of his conclusions.
You ask questions like a prosecuting attorney asks questions. You want to frame the answer that you get. I will not give in to such a manipulation. I gave you my answer. "As to my belief; the evidence is that Obama and most of his supporters and cohorts are at least "in tension" with capitalism if not attempting to overthrow it. Or to state it a different way I think Obama is a socialist to whatever degree he can get away with it."
Let me illustrate one more time the kind of logical violation you are guilty of attempting.
Las Vegas is the home of America's Sodom and Gomorrah and the arguments that come from a citizen of such a morally depraved city can not be valid and shouldn't be listened to.
Now that is a logical fallacy just like your comment about WND.
Your argument wasn't about Marxism. I agree that isn't an argument it is a question. The irrational argument you made was saying that a carefully vetted blog would not have an article from WND.
Using your logic I shouldn't be having a conversation with someone from sin city.
"You want to frame the answer that you get." Of course. Questions are normally designed to frame the answers that they get. If I was interested in your view of the prospects of USC versus Notre Dame, for example, I would frame the question to reflect that interest.
"The irrational argument you made was saying that a carefully vetted blog would not have an article from WND."
Untrue. You misrepresent my statement. I posted "Don't you believe that a "carefully vetted" blog should refrain from posting such libelous defamation of our President-Elect?"
I see no problem posting articles from WND as long as they do NOT contain such libelous defamation of our President-Elect, or any other material you are not willing to stand behind 100%. That is the purpose of careful vetting, I believe.
And I believe I have had enough of this. I guess our brains will never mesh. But then I never have been successful at communicating with lefties.
I do not call Obama by the same title as you. I call him Pretender to the Presidency. I don't expect him to be inaugurated. If inaugurated I expect him to be impeached in his first year in office.
His official title, sanctioned by the United States of America, is "President-Elect." It is unfortunate that you do not recognize this. Most voters would likely disagree with you.
Why do you believe he will be impeached? "High crimes and misdemeanors" or something else?
I am not well informed about the issue of impeachment. Is there some other reason to impeach someone? I thought "High crimes and misdemeanors" were the reasons.
Fund raising fraud and election fraud were the specific reasons I had in mind.
I suppose you have already seen the comment about treating Obama fairly. I will give as much respect to Obama as liberals gave to President Bush.
I do respect the office. President Elect is not an office. If Obama is sworn in I will give respect to the office even if the office holder happens to be Obama.
It is not my intention to turn this blog into a forum. My email address is public.
Post a Comment