“Barack: Guilty By Association?” [Reader Post]

Loading

220px-barack_obama.jpgTHREE exposes about Barack Obama have hit the top 20 lists virtually overnight. This brings back the whole question: ‘Whom did Barry know, and why did he know them?’ Some cried foul when these connections were first brought up, and continue to do so, but they are ignoring some common sense about associations.

There seems to be some confusion as to what ‘guilty by association’ means. It is a phrase used in the study of “Logic”. (Logic used to be taught in high schools. If it is found at all nowadays, it is taught in college Philosophy departments.) ‘Guilty by association’ is an “informal fallacy” of logic; it means that you reject someone’s logical argument because of those with whom he associates. I think we can all see how that is unfair and illogical.

However, we have the ability, and at times even the obligation to assess someone’s associations; we’ve always done it and we need to do it.

Probably the best example is getting a job. In every resume, we are required to provide “References”. We all know what these are: they are our closest associations, people who can vouch for our basic character and virtue. If I as an employer were to criticize you for the kind of people you hang around with, could you respond that he is using the ‘guilty by association’ card? Of course not! ‘Just because all of my closest associates are drug dealers doesn’t mean you can make anything of it!’ [Yeah, right! And I don’t have to give you a job, either.]

Other examples can be found when we have trials in courts of law. We can grill witnesses, jurors, lawyers and judges about who they know and why. One of the basic things we do is make judgments on associations because it is a basic way of getting at the truth. It’s something we have always done and there is no doubt it is something we have to do.

Now, Barack Obama is applying for the biggest job in the world! Also, part of the genius of our political system is the informal trial by fire candidates are forced to go through. We should take a good look at his references; the media should be forcing him to explain and account for his associations. These new books should be tested, studied and used to confront Obama and his campaign. What do we know so far? Let’s do a cursory review, shall we?

– In his own book, Obama identifies a strong influence on his youthful years, a man named “Frank”. We now know this is Frank Marshall Davis, who was a Communist Party member.

– We have all heard of Reverend Wright, but most have missed the main point: the main characteristic of “liberation theology” is that it is Marxist not Christian. (Obama has expressed doubts about the afterlife; is that a clue?) There is no way to miss this from a multitude of the church’s own statements. Obama donated large amounts of money to this group. When trouble broke about it, once again, Obama at first tried to deny knowing anything about what they teach; that it is “not particularly controversial”.

– Fr. Fleger is also part of this “liberation theology” cabal and everyone on the South Side knows it. As a state senator, Obama funneled hundreds of thousands of earmarks to Fr. Fleger and now claims to reject his message.

– William Ayers & Bernadette Dorn are unrepentant Marxist bombers. Obama’s attempts to pass them off as casual friends are totally disingenuous. He worked for Ayers for eight years, was associated with him in several other official ways and chose his house to launch his political career.

– Tony Rezko is a shady operative who has connected Obama to a host of radical figures. For instance, he used Rezko to make a large contribution to Hamid Dabashi (the one who invited Ahmadinijad to Columbia).

– At first, you could go to Obama’s web site and see many of this ilk featured. His main blogger on the site was an open Communist. (His site went down for ‘maintenance’ and ‘lost’ him; we can assume a lot of things have ‘disappeared’.) Remember the Che Guevera flag at his campaign headquarters in Texas and all the references to him on the site? Many of his ‘bundlers’ (those who get around contribution laws by putting large donors together) have been Communists or Marxists.

– During his “community organizer” stint, Obama made the choice to associate himself with the Saul saulalinsky.jpegAlinsky-style “revolution not revelation” model. Alinsky emphasized confrontational, polarizing, racially divisive tactics with a conscious Marxist bent. He is quoted as saying, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds (Communists) is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things….”

Now tell me this: would Barack Obama be able to get a job for the FBI or CIA with this Marxist background? And he wants us to hire him to lead the free world?

To be fair, basing a presidential choice just upon associations is not enough, but associations and ideology are, no doubt, going to have an affect on policy and on character. One karlmarx.jpegpossible complication in judging is that Marxism sanctions dishonesty about what one is really doing! Did you notice the globalist, redistrubutionist and other socialist references in his speech in Berlin? I won’t spend the time here to search for all the clues. I’ll leave it to all of you to decide where you see evidence of a ‘Marxist effect’.

In ancient Greece the Sophists tried to push the supreme power of Rhetoric. They said the power of persuasion is everything, no matter what the truth is. They were opposed by others who evolved into the line of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who said what is important is Truth, Character and Virtue. Let us not make the same mistake – let us choose Virtue and not Rhetoric. No matter what game he’s talking, we should find out if Obama is ‘guilty by association’.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
96 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’ll just repeat what I said and Mark’s response:

MIKE’S AMERICA WROTE: “The fact is that he was closely aligned with the same radical labor, class warfare, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist movements to which many communists in Hawaii belonged. He shared many of their views and apparently passed those along to a young, impressionable Obama along with a good dose of the racial message that has become a classic in defining blacks as the victims. A message which Obama has repeated in his own writings. I’d say that it is entirely fair to call Davis a “mentor” to Obama. He certainly seems to have had an impact on Obama’s intellectual development.”

RESPONSE: Such claims of my father’s radical influence are epitomized by (Accuracy in Media) Cliff Kincaid’s malicious statement that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” From Wikipedia’s entry on my father: “Claims of “decisive influence”, ‘mentor” and “father figure” are not supported by any facts or in Obama’s memoir.” Such claims, in the absence of confirmation from Obama himself, are speculation. They may be attributed to a “post hoc” fallacy

Mark: No where did I say your father was a Stalinist. However, are you trying to say that he never had any radical political views or that he didn’t pass any of them on to Obama?

You seem to want to practice some disinformation of your own here and you have been called on it by MataH.

I can only surmise that the general conclusions about your father and his impact on Obama are on the whole correct.

I certainly do not see anything but a smokescreen coming from you to dispute the claims myself and others have made.

So your father didn’t march in the May Day parade, nor was he a personal friend of Lenin. Who cares? He still practiced and promulgated the most radical and extreme views.

You can call it any other name you wish. “Progressive” seems to be the choice du jour for covering up extreme leftist views. But it still looks RED to me!

Mike’sAmerica

There’s an old saying…

“If two are traveling together on the road, would anyone say they weren’t going to the same destination?!”

Maybe that’s where the term “fellow traveler” comes from?
______________________________________________________

P.S., Thanks M.A. for the heads up on that live blog. Ain’t technology wonderful?!

Also, as you say to Mark,…
“Mark: No where did I say your father was a Stalinist. “

.And, as we recall, Hitler and Stalin were bitter enemies, even though they were both Leftists.
http://ray-dox.blogspot.com/2006/08/this-article-is-published-on-internet.html

YONASON WROTE: “So, he probably came by when you were little, or before you were born, I guess.”

RESPONSE: On the contrary. He came by after I left home to join the Air Force in 1968.

MIKES AMERICA WROTE: However, are you trying to say that he never had any radical political views or that he may have passed them on to Obama? I can only surmise that the general conclusions about your father and his impact on Obama are on the whole correct. So your father didn’t march in the May Day parade, nor was he a personal friend of Lenin. Who cares! He still practiced and promulgated the most radical and extreme views. You can call it any other name you wish. “Progressive” seems to be the choice du jour for covering up extreme leftist views. But it still looks RED to me!

RESPONSE: First of all, he believed in capitalism.. He ran his own businesses in Hawaii. He had radical political views for the 1930’s and 1940’s, but they would hardly have been considered radical in later decades. For example, integration of the armed forces was a radical concept. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have been considered radical. The Brown vs. the Board of Education decision would have been considered radical. Roe vs. Wade would also have been considered radical in earlier days. Actual freedom of the press and sexual freedom were also radical. Shall I go on? According to Tidwell, however, “there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology.”

FROM MY BLOG:
Davis may have advised Obama that to succeed in mainstream America, African-Americans must consider worst-case scenarios without wearing a chip on their shoulders, even though this normally requires judgment borne through actual experience. They must learn to give others (such as Cliff Kincaid) the benefit of the doubt. Success within mainstream America requires that abusive behavior should be attributed to bias only when there is no other plausible explanation.

Davis’ crusty radicalism may have perfectly counterbalanced Hawaii’s laid-back lifestyle for an African-American teenager destined for greatness. He provided coherent insight on African-American history, politics, and culture vis-à-vis mainstream America. Obama’s grandfather may not have recognized the true value of his gift.

Davis recognized the folly of cultural nationalism, including Black Separatist movements, long before meeting Obama. He supported a fully integrated mixed economy, because neither laissez–faire capitalism nor Marxist authoritarianism enable the greatest benefit for the greatest number. He also had a libertarian streak that may have made Ron Paul proud.

As an honorable man, Kincaid must be unaware that by the 1970’s, the twin forces of Hawaiian and hippie cultures had mellowed Davis to the point that “Stalinist” charges are especially absurd. By the early 1970’s, Davis had become a virtual teddy bear, a permanent fixture of the Koa Cottages in the “Waikiki Jungle,” noted for its counterculture residents. Davis was known as a kindly old man, usually sitting on his porch a few steps from Kuhio Avenue, waving at all that passed. Although he had little money, he was always willing to share with those in deeper need.

While he was justifiably bitter over the Jim Crow racism of his youth, recent decades made Davis quite optimistic regarding race relations. He strongly supported the nonviolent strategy of Dr. King, and believed that all mankind should be judged by the content of their character. He rejected militant African-American groups as counterproductive.

Kincaid and his honorable colleagues must also be unaware that although Davis shared King’s opposition to American intervention in Vietnam, he did not oppose his son’s decision to join the Air Force in 1968. His son eventually retired as an Air Force Intelligence Officer after 24 years of service, with full TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B) access. As an honorable man, this fact alone should mitigate any concerns about “Obama’s Marxist Mentor.”

As an honorable man, Cliff Kincaid must also be unaware that his portrayal of a raving Stalinist could not be further from the truth. Davis deeply loved the United States, despite his occasional flirtation with radical ideology. He recognized, perhaps belatedly, that the United States offers a unique combination of economic opportunity and personal freedom, thus providing sufficient strength and moral authority to champion human rights worldwide. If he HAD been so lucky, Barack Obama could not have found a finer mentor anywhere.

(See http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5nhJ)

“He came by after I left home to join the Air Force in 1968” — Mark Davis

O.k., so then Obama would have been, what, 4 years old? I guess it was later, then.

“Davis [you can call him “Dad” you know, I mean it’s not like you are reading out of an encyclopedia, or anything…(why you wanted your blog to read like that, I don’t know)] deeply loved the United States, despite his occasional flirtation with radical ideology. He recognized, perhaps belatedly, that the United States offers a unique combination of economic opportunity and personal freedom, thus providing sufficient strength and moral authority to champion human rights worldwide.”

I wonder when Obama and his wife are going to realize that, …what with him wanting to “change” it, and her being ashamed of it, and all. That’s important because while the USA has the strength you mention, it is NOT embodied in either the idiology or the actions of the political Left, and never has been, which is why Martin Luther, Jr. and many other Black men wer a Republican.

I hope you understand that, “There’s something seriously not right with this picture.”

It seems that a lot of this give and take is over Kinkaid’s substatiation of his claims, or not. So, what does he say?
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-frank-marshall-davis-network-in-hawaii/
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
http://www.aim.org/on-the-air/kincaid-exposes-obamas-communist-mentor-on-the-mark-carbonaro-show/

It’s late. I’ll have to go back and look at those tomorrow.

Mark: If you want to try and whitewash your father’s beliefs you can. But you would have to deny your father’s involvement in the International Longshoreman’s Union which had clear ties to the Communist Party as attested to by no less an authority than Senator Daniel Inouye.

I’m sure your father had many fine and admirable qualities, some of which were described in that paper I linked above:

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~takara/frank_marshall_davis.htm

But even Stalin had friends.

Why does everyone take Mark Davis’ word that he is the son of Frank Davis? Anyone can claim anything on the internet. It really irritates me when everyone falls all over themselves believing something that common sense tells you is false. Does anyone here believe that a supporter of Obama wouldn’t post such a thing as Mark Davis has done and call himself Mark Davis the son of Frank Davis? He has gone a long way in convincing some people that Frank Davis was (a) unimportant to Obama. (b) not a communist. (c) just a regular guy trying to make a living with unfortunate prior associations. I really don’t care whether or not Frank Davis influenced Obma in his childhood. Obama is what he is today because of the influences of his grandparents and his mother who were anti American lefties and his childhood in Islamic Indonesia. He really didn’t need Frank Davis to guide him in that direction. And Stanley Dunham was a friend of Frank Davis because they both agreed that American was a horrible country and needed to fall. I, for one, do not want the product of that hatred to be the President of the United States.

BINGO!

“He really didn’t need Frank Davis to guide him in that direction.” — BarbaraS

And so it doesn’t matter if “Mark” is his son or not.

Personally, I think O’Bummer may have been to young to be “influenced” by Davis when S. Dunham used to hang with him with little Obie tagging along other than as an adult “role model” or “hero” who’s ideas at the time he probably didn’t understand. I mean, if BHO is as shallow in that area as he is in others, I doubt he really understands Davis’ ideas, whatever they were, even now.
__________________________________________________________

And, I hope they dig my last post out of the spam bin soon. hint, hint.

MIKE’S AMERICA WROTE: Mark: “If you want to try and whitewash your father’s beliefs you can. But you would have to deny your father’s involvement in the International Longshoreman’s Union which had clear ties to the Communist Party as attested to by no less an authority than Senator Daniel Inouye.”

RESPONSE: He was involved with many communist organizations. That is not a point of contention.

BARBARAS WROTE: Why does everyone take Mark Davis’ word that he is the son of Frank Davis?

RESPONSE: Not everyone does. However there are two compelling items of evidence. I invite you to compare my photography with his, as posted on my blog. It may also help to take the word of Edgar Tidwell, who edited his books and confirms on my blog that I am the son of Frank Marshall Davis. You may email Edgar at tidwelje@ku.edu for further confirmation if desired.

BARBARAS WROTE: He has gone a long way in convincing some people that Frank Davis was (a) unimportant to Obama. (b) not a communist. (c) just a regular guy trying to make a living with unfortunate prior associations.

RESPONSE: I apologize for being unclear:

a. I never tried to convince people the my father was unimportant to Obama, only that he was not the radical influence portrayed by the right-wing disinformation campaign. The truth lies in the middle. He was definitely important in helping Obama gain a sense of racial identity. I apologize for conveying that false impression.

b. There is compelling evidence that he joined the CPUSA during WWII. That is not a point of contention. The truth lies in the middle: He never believed that our capitalist system should be replaced with a communist system.

c. He was not “just a regular guy trying to make a living with unfortunate prior associations.” He was an outspoken advocate for civil rights in Jim Crow America. The truth lies in the middle. Many of his goals were considered radical seventy years ago, but would be considered moderate today.

I hope this provides sufficient clarification. Please advise if I am still unclear.

Yonason,

– He was also a Republican. Martin Luther King Jr. was also investigated as being subversive. It went with the territory.

– I must have missed it, but where did Mrs. Obama say she was ashamed of the United States? While various actions may reasonably provoke pride (e.g., helping tsunami victims) or shame (e.g., abusing detainees), I do not recall her ever indicating overall shame of the United States.

– The AIM reports you cite, and others listed on the aim website, contain most of the “specific misrepresentation” I outline in my “Redbaiting Barack Obama” post at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX

I invite rigorous scrutiny of each specific point, and comparison to referenced source documents. The pattern of misrepresentation consistently exaggerates my father’s radicalism. Such consistent misrepresentation COULD conceivably be due to innocent error and sloppy journalism, but when done by an organization ostensibly committed to “Accuracy In Media,” it is highly unlikely.

Mark Davis

“I must have missed it, but where did Mrs. Obama say she was ashamed of the United States?” — Mark Davis

You will excuse me if I inferred that from her “first time I’ve been proud of my country” and “America is a mean country” and a few others, not to mention their associations with Rev. Wright, Fr. Phleger, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, etc., etc., who all hate and want to destroy the America that most of us know and love, despite it’s flaws. It IS a reasonable conclusion.

True, the absence of pride doesn’t automatically equate to shame, but pretty much the only reasons one wouldn’t be proud of one’s country are shame, and/or apathy, neither of which are characteristics I want in a first lady or a president (…who would think that America is “broken,” and that he’s the only one who can “fix” it, even though he’s never “fixed” anything more than an election before, and the only way he proposes doing it appears to be following Europe in order to make America into a “leader” – that’s his logic, not mine, again inferred from his ultra vague and profoundly empty rhetoric).

If Frank Davis were my Dad, I would be looking for the brighter side, too. But, again, his association with Obama isn’t essential for me to know that Obama is no good for America. I do reserve the right to change my mind about his association with Frank Davis, though, if more information comes to light.

You will excuse me if I inferred that from her “first time I’ve been proud of my country” and “America is a mean country” and a few others

What she actually said:

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country” (emphasis mine).

Words mean something. Putting a word in or leaving it out changes the meaning of a particular sentence. You can’t make up the meaning of a quote to suit your viewpoint if the actual words are saying something else.

DW 5000 WROTE: “Words mean something. Putting a word in or leaving it out changes the meaning of a particular sentence. You can’t make up the meaning of a quote to suit your viewpoint if the actual words are saying something else.”

I heartily agree. That is the essence of disinformation. A little twist here, a little exaggeration there, a half-truth now and then, and a false meme is created. This is the reason that disinformation campaigns must be fought by pulling out their roots.

When speculation is repeated enough, it may be accepted as fact, and thereby form the foundation for more speculation. That’s why it’s essential to distinguish between empirical evidence and speculation.

Apologists for Accuracy In Media may complain that some of their “specific misrepresentation” outlined in my blog is insignificant. Standing along, it may sometimes be true, but the cumulative effect is VERY significant! Sometimes, however, the specific misrepresentation is significant standing alone.

For example: Kincaid claims that my father told Obama in the 1970s’s that blacks have a “right” to hate whites, when he actually said that blacks have a “reason” to hate whites. Apologists for Kincaid may claim that the difference between a “right” and a “reason” is insignificant, until they realize that everything happens for a reason, even if the reason may be the random chance of a lottery. When they consider that John Wilkes Booth had a reason to shoot Abraham Lincoln, but not a right to shoot him, then they recognize the difference. It’s not rocket science.

JUST WORDS

“And let me tell you something — for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. And I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment</B..” — Mrs.ZeroB

So, she is now “really proud” ….

(1) “because Barack has done well
(2) because [she] think[s] people are hungry for change
(3) (and because she has) been desperate to see our country moving in that[????] direction

A-Hey, whatcha doin?
B-I’m headed out.
A-Where ya goin?
B-Hungry. Wanna come?
A-I wish! But my passport’s expired.
B-Hah! Too bad for you!
A-Yeah, but ya better be careful.
B-Why?
A-Well, you haven’t gone hungry in a while. You better take it slow at first, or you might hurt yourself.
B-Good point! Come to think of it, I didn’t even know I wanted to go until Mrs.Z told me I did.
A-She must be a mind reader, or something?
B-Yeah, must be!
A-What did she say?
B-She said she’d be desperate, alone and disappointed if I didn’t go.
A-Say, maybe the two of you could make a movie.
B-Now cut that out. Oh, yeah she also said that if I went, it would make her proud.
A-You wouldn’t want to disappoint her.
B-I most certainly would NOT!
A-What a guy!

She’s just a whiny spoiled brat who’s far too self absorbed to have any feeling for this country other than her envy and hate of it, and of those to whom it has given the opportunity to have even more than she.

PEAS IN A POD?

DW 5000 WROTE: “Words mean something. Putting a word in or leaving it out changes the meaning of a particular sentence. You can’t make up the meaning of a quote to suit your viewpoint if the actual words are saying something else.” — Mark Davis quoting WD-40

LOL. That’s hillarious, because twisting other peoples words is WD-40’s specialty!

see how he misquotes me…

What Does Obama Stand For?

…what he was misquoting…

What Does Obama Stand For?

…my response…

What Does Obama Stand For?

And that’s not the only time he’s done it.

My inference from not just that, but her other comments, like calling America “just downright mean”, (true if she’s talking about Lefites) makes sense, so it is immaterial if I “took it out of context” since in a more complete context than WD-40 gave it isn’t any better, and maybe even worse.

Nothing like a couple of thieves complaining about the “unethical” practices of the cops to inspire the country to “change” things for the “better.”

That’s hillarious, because twisting other peoples words is WD-40’s specialty!

see how he misquotes me…

What Does Obama Stand For?

…what he was misquoting…

What Does Obama Stand For?

…my response…

What Does Obama Stand For?

And that’s not the only time he’s done it.

Oh, noes!! I hurt poor yonasuck’s feelings! How ’bout if you stop with the pathetic whining and move on, eh, cupcake? Your reheated denials are no more palatable (or convincing) than they were when you served them up the first time.

“I hurt poor yonasuck’s feelings!” — WD-40

LOLOLOL – it vastly overrates itself.

Another of my favorite examples of it’s malice is how it mocked Bridget for her appreciation of the heroine, Irena Sendlerowa, and for her contempt for charlatans (like itself).

The comment it criticized…

In memory of Irena Sendlerowa

It’s childish, nasty and mean spirited neo-nazi hurl…

In memory of Irena Sendlerowa

That’s when I realized this nazi-loving scumwad was lower than chewing-gum on a hot pavement.

It’s childish, nasty and mean spirited neo-nazi hurl…

In memory of Irena Sendlerowa

That’s when I realized this nazi-loving scumwad was lower than chewing-gum on a hot pavement.

…And to the delight of the crowd, yawn’n’suck goes for a reverse double Godwin in full pike position. The bile’s rising and the spittle’s flying here tonight, ladies and gentlemen!

Yahoo! News dated August 14, 2008:

“Obama has acknowledged using marijuana and cocaine as a teenager…”

also:

[Jerome] Corsi [in his anti-Obama #1 best seller] “makes an issue of the fact that, before he quit smoking cigarettes, Obama didn’t want it widely known that he smoked. ‘If Obama takes pains to hide his smoking from us, what else does he take pains to hide?’ Corsi asks in the book.”

On another website (No Quarter blog):

View first hand a photo of a school registration form:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/14/breaking-photo-documents-barry-soetoro-indonesian-citizen-muslim-religion-updated-x-2/

Obama is registered as a Muslim. But he says, “I have never been a Muslim.” Oh, yeah?

[‘If Obama takes pains to hide his smoking from us, what else does he take pains to hide?’ Corsi asks in the book.”]

I think the jury is still out on Larry Sinclair…someone here posted the video of the press conference…he seems pretty credible, just don’t know.

AdrianS

Obama’s cocaine use alone should disqualify him from being eligable for Commander In Chief.
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1740

“…prior history of cocaine use disqualifies a member of the Armed Forces from touching a nuclear launch key, or indeed any access to weapons of mass destruction. The idea of giving someone with that kind of history the authority to order the use of such weapons, or even access to the codes for launching such weapons, should therefore appall all Americans. “

Obama’s cocaine use alone should disqualify him from being eligable for Commander In Chief.

Did you make the same point with Bush? How did you reconcile yourself to the fact that he has been Commander-in-Chief for the past eight years?

OH, and O’Bummer has admitted cocaine use, but Mr. Bush not only has not, the only “evidence” that he “might have” are the wishful fantasies and false accusations of the Left.

Certainly, if he used it, the same standards should apply to him as to O’Bummer [I might actually prefer a Cheney presidency], but slander isn’t fact, except in the twisted minds of the Left.

Mark Davis, I hope you are taking notes.

Ah well, at least we got Mark Davis to admit that his father was knee deep in Communists. That’s progress.

And we also got Dim Wit to acknowledge Obama’s cocaine use.

Let’s have a party to celebrate!

OH, and O’Bummer has admitted cocaine use, but Mr. Bush not only has not, the only “evidence” that he “might have” are the wishful fantasies and false accusations of the Left.

Really? That’s it? That’s all you’ve got–that he didn’t admit it?

That’s quite a corner you’re painting yourself into. How many accusations have been leveled at Obama on this site that he has not admitted to? They, too, must all go out the window.

How many convicted criminals have yet to confess to their crimes? Well, then, let’s throw the cell doors wide!

Are you willing to live by “if he doesn’t admit it, then it’s not true” in all aspects of life? How about just for this election?

Mike’s America

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Oh, and I just noticed that he’s wearing a lapel pin he believes in. Someone is a stickler for detail!

And we also got Dim Wit to acknowledge Obama’s cocaine use.

And where, pray tell, might that have happened?

Really? That’s it? That’s all you’ve got–that he didn’t admit it?WillfullyiDiotic-40

You have “proof?”

PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

So Dim Wit… You jumped on Bush for rumors of cocaine use and deny that Obama used drugs despite his admissions?

You’re further off the edge of reality than I thought!

Or does the phrase Obama used: “maybe a little blow” mean something different to a Democrat?

Was he talking about a short Monica Lewinsky or are those OTHER rumors about Obama true?

deny that Obama used drugs despite his admissions?

…And please show me where I did that. I’m sick and tired of your habit of putting words in my mouth.

Really? That’s it? That’s all you’ve got–that he didn’t admit it? — WillfullyiDiotic-40

You have “proof?”

PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

Of course you avoided answering my question; you have no way to answer it truthfully and keep whatever shreds of credibility you might have. Your transparent attempt to wrest the discussion away from your blatant hypocrisy is gaining no traction with me.

ENERGIZER PROPAGANDIST – IT KEEPS ON GOING AND GOING AND GOING . . .

“How many convicted criminals have yet to confess to their crimes?” — WD-40

Bush was neither convicted nor was any evidence ever brought against him. He was falsely accused. WD-40’s stupid “question” is just another way of rephrasing the false accusation, i.e., it’s sleezy propaganda, as is WD-40’s habit.

It’s pathological sleezy lefty whining is just meant as a distraction from the fact that there is no substance to the accusation while continuing to propagate the falsehood.

NOW, LAST TIME – PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

So Dim Wit: For the record, you acknowledge that Obama admitted using both pot and coke?

So Dim Wit: For the record, you acknowledge that Obama admitted using both pot and coke?

So, Clueless, are you asking me or telling me? You can’t seem to understand the point, can you?

“How many convicted criminals have yet to confess to their crimes?” — WD-40

Bush was neither convicted nor was any evidence ever brought against him. He was falsely accused. WD-40’s stupid “question” is just another way of rephrasing the false accusation, i.e., it’s sleezy propaganda, as is WD-40’s habit.

B-b-but I thought that the standard of proof was that somebody either did or did not confess to something. So distinguished a judicial expert as yawn’n’suck said so right here:

OH, and O’Bummer has admitted cocaine use, but Mr. Bush not only has not, the only “evidence” that he “might have” are the wishful fantasies and false accusations of the Left.

None of those guys in prison confessed. Surely the case against each and every one of them is made of wishful fantasies and false accusations!

What about DUI? Does being a drunk driver disqualify you from anything, or is drunk driving a-okay in your book?

NOW, LAST TIME – PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

Right back atcha, yawn’n’suck. Document all your accusations against Obama with confessions by him, or shut up.

(And what’s with the “last time” business? “Last time” or what? Does it excite you to play the BIG INTERNET TOUGHGUY?)

Mark Davis. So sorry not to weigh in sooner. Been so busy that I’ve just been able to monitor threads lightly, and dig people out of spam filters. Commenting and posting has been out of the question. But I see a brief window at the moment. So let me go back to your comment #40.

You truly are a man that, despite the differences I know we have, I can respect… for education, command of the language, and for presentation of your position. I too would go to the mat had anyone spoken ill of my father, and what I believe is a mischaracterization of who he was – at heart.

Circumstances in his era were different than what any of us on this forum know today (most of us aren’t his age…). And I will take your word that he loved capitalist America and it’s opportunities offered… as long as they got that civil rights in place for all Americans, regardless of color.

Altho since you seem unaware of Obama as a child in your father’s life, I believe you may not have been that close with your father in that period.

Let’s talk “you” for a moment. Your father is gone. I think most of us realize that BHO is responsible for who he is today… and only BHO. He is the one who chose to surround himself with a particular political breed and religion.

You, however, are like most of America… a mixture of “opposite sides of the aisle”. You appear conservative on 2nd Amendment. And perhaps you are more aligned with Ward Connerly on affirmative action than with Obama (can’t tell…). Since you admit you started paying attention to Obama only after this controversy with your father started, may I make a suggestion?

Yes, the BHO website is where people go to hear the “debunking” thing any any particular issue. However, since your prime mission is to rectify the rumors and dis/mis misinformation on your father, that you may enjoy more credibility with both sides of the aisle using Blogger, WordPress or other free blogging site that does not conflict with your message. As you can see, so many discard the messenger by distrust of the messenger, using the bullhorn of a political candidate.

If you are an Obama supporter… fine. You’re certainly not alone. And from some of the things you said, I have to wonder if you are that staunch an Obama supporter.

But if you genuinely wish to cast new light on your father’s political beliefs in post-civil rights times (*the* era when he would be acquainted with a young Obama), you really need to leave the campaign wing of the candidate.

Having a website under the Obama campaign banner merely makes you appear to be one of Obama’s website warriors – out there to merely cause their own “mis” information campaigns in order to accomplish muddy comprehension in order to get BHO elected. If you want to accomplish your task, pick your priorities, and pick a 3rd party forum.

You are new to blogging. I hope you expand your blogging to a non-campaign affiliation and maintain a more expansive presence. I also hope you weigh in here on the specific issues that are not necessarily based on your father.

BTW, why are you an unregistered voter? We need informed voters… not bodies… at the polls. At least, with you, I feel assured you picked a candidate that follows your beliefs. And you’re weren’t some dupe mesmerized by campaign “pyrotechniques”, so to speak.

“Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack [heroin] though.” — Barack Hussein Obama, self-confessed drug user! (from his book)

Now, about Bush. He never said he did, so in order to prove that he did, you would need evidence, or reliable testimony. There is none.

WD-40 accused Bush of using cocaine when there is no evidence. That is slander. I accused Obama of using it, BECAUSE HE SAID HE DID.

So, let’s review – WD-40 said Bush used cocaine based on hearsay, which means WD-40 is a liar. (Yeah, I know y’all are shocked to hear THAT!)

Yawn’n’suck:

You avoided the DUI question, for which, by the way, there is evidence. By your silence–your refusal to denounce drunk driving–I’ll assume that you approve of driving drunk and, quite possibly, have engaged in it yourself.

It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

More stuff you avoided addressing:

Right back atcha, yawn’n’suck. Document all your accusations against Obama with confessions by him, or shut up.

Further:

And what’s with the “last time” business? “Last time” or what?

We weren’t talking about DUI, we were talking about COCAINE… (or is your alzheimers acting up again?)

Alcohol doesn’t rot the brain the way cocaine does.

“More stuff you avoided addressing:

Right back atcha, yawn’n’suck. Document all your accusations against Obama with confessions by him, or shut up.”

I did address it, and here’s the quote you ignored from my post above…

“Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little BLOW when you could afford it. Not smack [heroin] though.” — Barack Hussein Obama, self-confessed drug user! (FROM HIS BOOK)

OPEN YOUR EYES, DipWad!

Hmmm, this is good, too.
“…, according to New York Times reviewer Michiko Kakutani, Obama is very “candid about his youthful struggles: pot, booze and ‘maybe a little blow,’ he wrote, could ‘push questions of who I was out of my mind,’ flatten ‘out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.‘”

Oh, yeah, he’s flaaaatened & bluuurrrred them, all right!

“BLOW” = COCAINE (It could have meant pot, if he haden’t already said that, and acknowledged that it cost enough more to limit it’s use to when he had the extra ‘bread’).

**NOTE: One of the names for cocaine is “berni” according to that link. I wonder if we could add “barry” to that list? It would make sense to, after all.

Of course, he MIGHT not have taken it at all, and just be lying. That would mean that instead of a druggie we get a pathological liar. That should make everyone feel SOOOO much better.

Here’s a little more on why the O’Bombster is not “the one.”

Finally, I don’t need “confessions” by him for other things for which if I have independent evidence, but in this case I do have his confession WHICH IS REAL EVIDENCE. But to have to rely on confessions for ALL accusations when I have other solid evidence? Are you THAT clueless? (Like I have to ask?)

Now, STOP AVOIDING GIVING ME HARD EVIDENCE THAT BUSH USED COCAINE, which is what this whole conversation the YOU STARTED is all about. You keep changing the subject and refuse to give a straight answer. Could it be because that evidence doesn’t exist? I repeat, PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!

Do you think you can follow that simple instruction, junior? Or will you blow it out your ear again, and spew some more irrelavent nonsense? (Like I have to ask!)

Obama smoked pot and snorted cocaine!

Why can’t Dim Wit admit that?

If he wants to keep avoiding the subject while smearing Bush we can keep bringing it up!

If he wants to keep avoiding the subject while smearing Bush we can keep bringing it up! — Mike’s America

It works for me. He keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper while affording me the opportunity to get out more info about what a lousy choice for president O’Bummer is.

Many, many people Obama’s age have smoked pot, drunk alcohol and even tried coke.

Next.

“Arthur” aside from Obama’s admitted pot and cocaine use, is there anything he could have done or did do that would cause you to not vote for him?

Yeah, Stoner, and the sky is blue. So what? They aren’t running for president.

And it’s not the alcohol I’m worried about, and maybe not the pot, but for sure the cocaine IS a real problem because of the long term impairment of judgement it can cause even with just a brief episode of “casual” use.