PostHeaderIcon WTP-01 Devilish Questions

WTP = ‘We The People,’ which strikes me as a perfect achronym for replacing the cumbersome, and oft misconstrued, “TEA Party” construct, for describing the general pro-Constitution, pro-capitalist, anti-Marxist, non-partisan, political activism of late. Please help propagate this meme.

I happen to enjoy spirited debates, and frequently encounter some of the best spontaneously breaking out among total strangers, in the comment section of well read articles. I find I often learn more about the topic from these debates, than from the original article. Thus, I am prone to ‘wasting’ much time perusing comments, and I occasionally will join in the fray, if I think I have something to add, or become agitated by one of the combatants.

I have been doing a lot of this of late, and neglecting my duties here. It occurs to me that I often write significant posts elsewhere, which I should probably memorialize, and might be of interest here. Besides, Troy shouldn’t have to do all the work to keep this place active. So, I am going to start an ongoing ‘WTP’ series, to share some of these discussions as they happen out among the WTP community.

I have been enjoying sport with the so-called ‘Obots’ in the comment section of Bernie Goldberg’s article entitled, “Do You Believe in the Devil — and a Few Other Questions” on his website. While trying to get his attention with my letter challenging him to consider becoming our WTP hero, as described in my essay, “Support and Defend,” I became intrigued by the agenda and techniques of these slippery characters. The ‘Obots’ are reported to be a team of about one hundred individuals, allegedly paid by George Soros to challenge any anti-Obama discussions on popular websites.

As is my wont, I poked at these odd critters, and discovered the sport that could be had in repeatedly doing so. Even though most of what was being debated was over birth certificate issues that I had no interest in, I knew enough to hold my own. Now, for pure sport, as they struggle to tamp down discussions of his eligibility with lawyerly obfuscation, I keep ragging on lawyers and introducing more data regarding how phony his personal narrative is. Here is an example:

———-

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” -Voltaire

Bless Voltaire… and damn lawyers! We have here a baby step of progress, toward effective communication. When asked to explain his odd mantra of the day, “There is no evidence…,” Bobby seems to equate ‘evidence’ with ‘fact’ and ‘proof.’

///bob said: Evidence is a fact that proves an assertion.

Cashill’s speculation is not evidence.///

You may wish to grow up to be a lawyer, Bobby; but most of us aren’t and don’t. Regular folk tend to connote the word ‘evidence’ as ‘tending to indicate’ something. It may or may not be valid, true, or conclusive. By your connotation, one could not amass any evidence on either side of a debate over an unprovable hypothesis.You try to make a legal issue out of everything, so adverse charges can be dismissed on a legal technicality.

It is not illegal to hire a ghost writer to write a fable for one to put one’s name on. It is a bit disingenuous to allow others to surmise that you were the sole author, and it is a baldfaced lie to come right out and assert it; but not illegal, so we need no lawyers to evaluate Jack Cashill’s contribution toward uncovering the mysterious past of the Obamessiah, only a fair, open, functioning mind. When someone offered you a dictionary, you chose to quote the judicial usages:

///bob said: “data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.”

Cashill’s speculation is none of those.///

Yes, these data are forms of evidence; but are you suggesting that there are no such things as false testimony, unreliable witnesses, phony records, forged documents, or irrelevant objects ever submitted into evidence in court? Are not the opening and closing arguments of the lawyers on both sides of a criminal case, precisely their speculation, supported by their evidence, as to the actions, motive, and guilt or innocence of the defendant?

Can conflicting evidence all be facts? The prosecutor puts an eyewitness on the stand. The defense puts an alibi on the stand, who swears the defendant was elsewhere. Their sworn testimonies are both considered evidence; but are both factual? The cool thing about our system of justice, is that neither the lawyers or the judge get to decide which one is lying. That is up to the jury, who are thankfully not crippled with a legal beagle mindset, and can apply their wisdom and common sense to the task.

Since you prefer to think in legalese, let’s try an apt analogy. Cashill is the prosecutor in a case challenging Obama’s assertion that he alone wrote his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” and that the contents therein is a true narrative about his past. You have accepted the assignment of being the defense lawyer. We The People (WTP) – the readers of such books – are the jury, with one minor difference; it only takes a simple majority to convict your client of an outrageous fraud. The punishment, of course, would be serious damage to his reputation, and an ever-growing propensity for the public to mistrust anything else Obama has, does, or ever will say, and/or be claimed to be true about him. You have a crucial, if daunting, role, Bob; are you up to it?

Cashill has done a prodigious amount of diligent research, to amass the compelling evidence supporting his theory, regarding the veracity of Obama’s assertions in this matter. He has compiled his case into a book of his own, which he has presented to the WTP jury and rested his case. It is now your turn at bat, and so far all I have seen is a silly denial that the prosecutor has any evidence at all, and some cheap ad hominem shots at his competence, and perhaps his bias against the anti-American philosophy animating your defendant.

That is pretty thin gruel, Bobby. Lazy too. You don’t seem diligent enough to even do discovery. You have ready access to his whole case, from opening remarks all the way through summation. You could have it on your Kindle in two minutes, and you won’t even bother to read it. Meanwhile, the jury has and they are not sequestered. They are talking and revealing the substance of the prosecutor’s case to the world; most with glee, just like I am. 🙂

To whit, I’ll repeat: I have read Jack Cashill’s, “Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America’s First Postmodern President.” A ghost writer himself of some repute, Cashill makes an irrefutable case that Bill Ayers wrote it.

I would love to see you, or anyone else, honestly critique the book and refute the evidence, with anything beyond ad hominem for the author. It simply can’t be done.

Here is the description of the book from Amazon:

///Did Obama write his own books and is the story they tell true?

“I’ve written two books,” Barack Obama told a crowd of teachers in July of 2008. “I actually wrote them myself.” The teachers exploded in laughter. They got the joke: lesser politicians were not bright enough to do the same. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama supporters pointed to the first of those two books, the 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, as proof of Obama’s superior intellect. Time magazine called Dreams “the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician.” The Obama campaign machine traded on the candidate’s literary reputation, encouraging volunteers to “get out the vote and keep talking to others about the genius of Barack Obama.”

There was just one small flaw, as writer and literary detective Jack Cashill discovered months before the November 2008 election: nothing in Obama’s history suggested he was capable of writing either Dreams or his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope. In fact, as Cashill continued his research, he came to the shocking conclusion that the real craftsman behind Dreams was terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers.

“This was a charge,” David Remnick admits in his definitive Obama biography, The Bridge, “that if ever proved true, or believed to be true among enough voters, could have been the end of the candidacy.

Deconstructing Obama tells the story of what happens when a citizen journalist discovers a game-changing reality that the media refuse to acknowledge. Despite their rejection, Cashill expanded his research into Obama’s literary canon. As he came to see, if Dreams serves as sacred text, the poem “Pop” is the Rosetta stone, the key to deciphering Obama’s shrouded past, his fragile psyche, and his uniquely cryptic political life. In unlocking that past, Cashill discovered that the story that Obama has been telling all his life varies from the true story in ways big and small. In fact, much of Obama’s life story appears to be a wholly constructed fabrication, one that Jack Cashill “deconstructs” to show the world just who Barack Obama really is.///

You should read it, Bob… although you might learn some things about your messiah you most likely really don’t want to know. ◄Dave►

7 Responses to “WTP-01 Devilish Questions”

  • Trial says:

    …Some of us have dealt with these particular Obots for years now. These Obots from a certain anti-birther website go around the internet commenting on any “birther” related articles they can find. I gotta give em’ credit though; a lot of them know a lot more than even the “birthers.” The problem with this, however, is that they use their knowledge for evil. Even when they know the facts of a debate, they purposely try to mislead readers into thinking about possibilities/technicalities that have been thoroughly debunked in the past.

    I do not believe they are being paid by George Soros. Maybe Jesse Lee, but not George Soros. After all, Soros is too busy ruining entire countries for him to be giving Obots paychecks. I sincerely believe these individuals are die-hard liberals who would do ANYTHING to keep Obama in office.

    As much as I appreciate your enthusiasm in the natural born citizenship debate, Dave, I feel I must urge you to focus more on the BC issues. Even if you’re 100% correct in your arguments for two citizen parents, do you honestly believe the Supreme Court would side with your viewpoints? More than likely, they would ignore binding precedent and claim natural born citizenship is synonymous with native born citizenship. Even this wouldn’t be much of a problem if “birthers” could garner public sentiment in favor of the two citizen parent premise. This premise, however, is hard for the average American to understand. It is easy to explain to the public about how a President should not have allegiance to other countries, but anything beyond that usually flies over people’s heads.

    Forgery is an easy concept for the American people to understand. If we can convince enough people that the BC’s the President released were fraudulent or at the very least tampered with, we could have another “Donald Trump” enter the stage. Public sentiment is what’s needed most in these debates, I just don’t believe the two citizen parents issue is going to create that sentiment. Even so, I truly do appreciate your contributions in furthering public debate.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Thanks for your input, Trial. I appreciate your thoughtful participation here. I hope you remain after this issue probably dies down hereabouts.

      I agree that some of the Obots are rather competent at their task. They are particularly adept at ignoring ad hominem, and sticking to their mantras. They obviously have a repository of data they can access, for quick cut & paste responses. I didn’t mean that they were literally receiving paychecks signed by Soros. I had the impression that they were being paid by one of the many Lefty organizations, which receive a majority of their funding from sources that ultimately came from him. It matters not.

      I have not expected any favorable ruling from SCOTUS for quite some time. Even Thomas has been quoted as admitting that they were avoiding the issue. My intent is to keep it out of courts, and try to get enough pressure put on him to resign. Impeachment is not a possibility over eligibility, but the forgeries give him a culpability problem that could force action, which would make it in his best interest to take a deal, and get out of town. If it could be established that he never was eligible, much of the damage he has done would be reversed by default.

      I have no problem addressing the forged BCs, it is all the effort to identify a foreign location for his birth that grates on me, because it doesn’t matter. Had the NBC issue been properly vetted before the election, he would never have been elected. Given the narrative I had to work with, a solo trip to Africa by Stanley, and birth there, just never made any sense to me. It has been my theory for a couple of years now, that she gave birth in Canada, at a home for wayward girls. Air travel all alone, for a teenager with a newborn to Seattle, from Hawaii or Kenya, seems unlikely.

      Yet, had he been born in Washington, there would have been no reason to have her parents register the birth in Hawaii. Ergo, Vancouver, Canada; unless the whole sham marriage and HI birth was done by her parents, for the benefit of their friend Obama Sr.’s immigration status, rather than her reputation. Personally, I think it likely that Frank Marshall Davis was the actual biological father, which ironically, if he were born in HI, would make him biologically a NBC; but not a legal one, because the supposed documentation identifies the Brit as the father.

      As to my enthusiasm and contribution to the debate, it is truly sport for me. I simply enjoy writing and debating, and would rather be doing that than any other diversion currently available to me. I haven’t the slightest notion that I am doing the least bit of good. This country is toast and I am old enough that it really doesn’t matter; I won’t be around to see the end. Even if we somehow survive the financial collapse we are now witnessing, demographics will kill off the American culture in the end. See my “Dark Ages II” essay. ◄Dave►

  • RR Rocks says:

    Let a republican run with the same creds as obomb-ba and see what happens. They are already all over the TX guy for his grades and such, none of which exist fo the bomber.

    NOW comes out today to flop their tits and make like they matter over another defunct publication called yesterday’s Newsweek.

    I’ve read enough crap to sorta know that most of these folks are just drinkin the cool aid in quantities that would cause damage. (where of where are the nanny’s)?

    Huff post was built upon such, and seemingly they are sorta pissed cuz dey aint gonna git a piece of dat 315 million dollar pie for their efforts either. Legally they are not entitled, but da bitch in charge might have a moral or ethical desire to share some of what others help[ed build. But her liberal/homo sapient greed will win and phuck them anyway.

    Trump whimped out! Totally whimped out he did. Like March, n like a lion, out like a lamb. As a hotel guy I understand, somewhat, but iffin ya ant got staying power, do not make so much noise, cuz da folks payin yer way don’t ask and you best not tell.

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Hey, RR! Good to see you over here. Follow the link back to Bernie’s post. There is a passel of Obots thereabouts, who could really use a dose or two of your sass! 🙂

  • Troy says:

    Dave,
    I am glad you enjoy matching wits with the Obots, even though most of them come to the party only half armed. I have tried it a time or two, but, I guess I’ve just gotten to old because, once they start responding to a rational argument with profanity, name calling and the like, it invariably turns me off to the point where I cannot continue the exchange. It turns out I am a good analyst and a poor debater.

    Troy

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Think Up/Down not Left/Right
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak
Please also join us here. ◄Dave►