November 9, 2008
Sarah Palin - A Star is ... Created
Well, she has legs! No, no ... I'm referring to the continuing stories about Sarah Palin, not the beauty queen herself!
It isn't enough that the press, in Bill Clinton's own words [bottom of 9th paragraph], acted as Obama's "personal chauffeur" on the election trail, but they now seem determined to utterly destroy Sarah Palin and any potential political future she might have on the national stage.
The attacks continue in the pressosphere unabated. I think today Obama finally got more national press coverage than Governor Palin did ... but not by a whole lot.
I have been "consciously aware" of presidential elections since the Goldwater debacle of 1964 [well, semi-conscious for the first couple ... and for some really boring ones since]. But I remember the election of '64 very clearly. Even though age-wise, I was only a short distance into double figures, I was flabbergasted that the media could destroy someone so completely. I knew things about Goldwater that the media didn't know (nor do most people even today!) ... indeed, I knew things about the John Birch Society (which was the primary limb from which the media hung him), that the media didn't know! How could that be?
Obviously now that I'm old and cynical I realize that the media knew everything I did all along and simply lied on the theory that most people really didn't know and even if they did, perhaps they could be made to question their own knowledge. Those were different times and the media and "the people" had a different relationship. There were very few sources of news. Essentially there were three television stations and "local" newspapers. Oh, there were a few national newspapers out, but few "regular people" read them and they tended to be specialized and their readership similarly specialized. For example, although it has been published since 1889, to the best of my recollection I had never seen anyone reading the Wall Street Journal.
The press had inordinate power. As mentioned, there were very few options for obtaining national news back then and, perhaps vastly more critical, "the people" as a whole had not yet realized that the newspapers regularly and intentionally lied to us. We were taught in school that the news in newspapers was just that: news. Boring facts unadulterated by the personal opinions of the reporters or the political positions of the owners. All opinions were on the Editorial Page and were clearly marked as such. Oh, there were small muckraking newspapers whose single editor/owner/typesetter often broke such rules and let his opinions run rampant. But those were not considered "real newspapers" by "real journalists". Indeed, newspapers were held to such a high standard that they hired proofreaders to make absolutely certain that no error or typo or misspelling made it into print. And, indeed, few did.
But after the press had done their job and destroyed Goldwater's reputation and successfully elected Lyndon Johnson by a landslide ... they talked about ... Lyndon Johnson. They didn't talk much about Goldwater and they certainly didn't talk much about [you don't have a clue do you? :-)] his VP candidate, William Miller. I remember Johnson won that election by using the "old" Cold War and the "new" television to scare the public in the first example of true dirty"negative" advertising on national TV (such as the "daisy ad"that convinced people that Goldwater was a militaristic loose cannon and if he were elected we would be annihilated by Atom Bombs)!
Johnson ran as the peace candidate (and of course, immediately upon winning the election cranked up the Vietnam "situation" where we had "peacekeepers" and "advisers" into a full-blown war).
I do remember one somewhat famous mention of Goldwater in regards to the election that included an early "shot" at the media sometime afterwards: "They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we'd be in war in 6 months. Well, I did, and we are."
But I have never seen anything like the Palin phenomena. It suggests that either the left is remarkably scared of her and desperately want to destroy and bury her or that the right is fascinated and delighted and wants her to play on the national stage without being "held down" by a hopeless candidate (who, perhaps wisely, particularly after the national economic meltdown seemed to be working to lose the election). Or, most likely ... both factors are at work.
It is clear, however, despite the idiocies of the pundits in trying to "kill two birds with one stone", (and McCain's people trying to shift blame as effectively as possible) that McCain's loss was not due to Sarah Palin ... nor was his potentially psychologically throwing the election due to his remorse about putting someone "so unqualified" a heartbeat away from the presidency. (Although it certainly is possible that he didn't want to give any unhinged Palin backers ... and every candidate has them ... a reason to get rid of that heartbeat that was keeping her from the main office.) More plausible is that he realized that because of her, he might actually win! And that scared him more than being shot down by enemy aircraft!
Yet two things are happening that the "Hate(fear) Palin" crowd did not anticipate. First, the simple fact that they are continuing to berate and lampoon her keeps her in the national news and in the public's mind. They would be well served to remember the old saying: "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right." There is a sense that if the liberal elites are still this concerned about her ... perhaps there are reasons why they should be.
So there is that sort of "obvious" backlash. If there had been any working brain cells left, the punditocracy would have instantly and immediately ignored Palin as though she had never existed. With no national press coverage she would have quickly "sunk back" into that distant Alaska pond from where she emerged. The pressography did Palin a huge favor ... one that they would not have had they been paying attention in class in Journalism 101 or remedial Psychology.
Yet, there is something else going on as well. Palin has been so viciously castigated by out-and-out lockstep lies ... lies that are patently obvious to those of us who knew a lot about Sarah Palin before most of the nation had ever heard of her. The witch-hunt has been so unrelenting and so intense, that it has spawned an entirely different sort of backlash: the good kind. People are obviously still fascinated with her. Many would like to believe better of her than the media does. And so we now have people who are going to tell the world the truth!
It is much more likely that Obama was born in Kenya than it is that Palin is a pawn of Big Oil, for instance. Yet because the press pooh-poohed the stories about Obama and, indeed, ripped anyone (including Sarah) who suggested that there was anything amiss that perhaps the press should look into, such stories never got traction.
Yet "everyone" seems to "know" that Sarah is a pawn of Big Oil who sold out her own state. This is ludicrous of course for any who know the facts ... but we are few and far between. However, the public's fascination and the media's refusal to let go of a bone that, had it any sense it would have spit out on election night, have led to what I believe may only be the beginning of a Palin resurgence. Presidency in 2012? It is not as crazy an idea as the elitists would have you think. Especially if people start learning the truth (and therefore start learning how badly they've been lied to)!
I haven't read this book yet. But it looks as if this is an example ... a first salvo as it were ... in the beginnings of the public redemption of Sarah Palin ... which will doubtlessly be helped along by the realization of how badly the punditocracy lied about her.
If so ... and considering the issues he faces, the unbelievable lack of experience, and the most socialistic agenda of any candidate in the nation's history ... President Obama may find himself badly beaten by a woman with lipstick and a great wink in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Obama Cannot Be President
by Dr. Robert Coambs
Dr. Coambs studies human reasoning and logic.
Obama is Disqualified by the Known Unknowns
(1) At the time of the November 4 election, Obama' eligibility was unknown to the majority of the American electorate. That is, the vast majority of the American electorate did not know whether Obama was eligible to become the President of the United States (POTUS).
Furthermore Obama's eligibility remains unknown, even to Americans who are very interested in this question, and have inquired deeply into it. When asked in court to produce evidence of his eligibility, Obama has declined to do so, even in the face of the considerable time, expense and trouble that is needed to avoid providing this evidence. Thus, the US citizenry did not know on November 4 if Obama was eligible, and they still do not know.
(2) Among the US citizenry are the following:
The current POTUS
The current VPOTUS & President of the Senate
The US Supreme Court
The US Congress
The Senior Staff of the Pentagon
The Senior Staff of the Federal Elections Commission
The Members of the Electoral College
To best of my knowledge, none of these individuals have officially and publicly declared Obama to be eligible to be POTUS. They have not produced or provided sufficient evidence to prove this eligibility.
(3) The news media, television, radio, and the Internet transmit huge amounts of information each day. However, to the best of my knowledge the eligibility of Obama to be POTUS is not known by the general public (See Note 1).
(4) Until and if that dissemination occurs, there is a method of formal logic that can be applied to this situation. It is called the Categorical Syllogism, and was described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20). Ordinarily, a categorical syllogism is simply called a syllogism, as I shall do here. We begin with the major premise, which is from the US constitution, Article II, Section 1, which states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
(5) From this we can construct the following syllogism:
Major Premise: To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise: Obama's eligibility is not publicly known.
Conclusion: Therefore Obama is not POTUS.
(6) How Categorical Syllogisms work
When we learn logic in school the categorical syllogism is often taught like this. It begins with a Major Premise, like this:
All humans are mortal.
Then one introduces a second, or Minor Premise, like this:
Socrates is human.
Then we combine the major and minor premises to get this Conclusion:
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
This method of deductive logic is more than 2000 years old and is taught in almost every introductory logic course in the world. According to these rules of deductive logic, as described by Aristotle (Prior Analytics, 24b18-20) if both premises are true, then the conclusion is true.
Logic is a branch of mathematics, and these rules are like those of arithmetic, where 2+2=4. The result is not negotiable. It is not subject to debate. These rules are universal, they apply everywhere in the known universe. At any time or place one can imagine, 2+2 will equal 4.
Just like arithmetic, the rules of deductive logic are not time-dependent and can be articulated at any time and place in the Universe. If we were to stand on the surface of Mars, then 2+2 would equal 4, and the syllogism above would also be true. If we were traveling at nearly the speed of light, these rules would be true. If all humans disappeared from existence, and only one computer remained, then it could calculate that 2+2=4, and it would be correct. If the computer disappeared, and there were no sentient beings left, and no computational devices, then still, 2+2=4. The syllogism would also be true. These rules are not the inventions of man, they are the rules of nature, and of the Universe.
The simple rules of arithmetic and deductive logic transcend space, time, matter, and energy. There is no point in trying to refute a categorical syllogism in which both premises are true. The conclusion must be true.
The conclusion of this syllogism is self-evident, because it merely requires the combination of two correct premises to produce a correct conclusion.
As I write this, both premises are true, and therefore, Obama is not POTUS. Right now, this is not a constitutional issue because Obama only the president-elect. The syllogism is written in the present tense, so as time moves forward, the status of the syllogism also moves forward. As time reaches January 20, 2009, if the premises remain true, then the conclusion will remain true: Obama is not POTUS. At that point the syllogism has significant constitutional impact, because Obama will sit as if he is POTUS, but he will not be POTUS.
Obama has ample time to act. If at any time Obama becomes publicly known to be eligible, then this syllogism would be invalid. That is, Obama might be POTUS, because he would be eligible. The conclusion of the syllogism would be invalid, because the minor premise would be invalid. The minor premise states "Obama's eligibility is not publicly known". If his eligibility becomes known, then the conclusion is invalid, and Obama might be eligible. But until his eligibility is publicly known, Obama is not POTUS, either before or after January 20.
If Obama took office without his eligibility being publicly known, then he is not POTUS. If Obama pretended to be POTUS, and other humans believed that he was POTUS, he would still not be POTUS. Even if 300 million Americans agreed to let Obama sit as if he were POTUS, and run the executive branch of the USA as if he were POTUS, he would not be POTUS.
The syllogism is compelling, omnipresent, and transcendent in time. So long as the premises remain true, the conclusion is true, and it's form and meaning cannot be changed by human intervention.
If Obama sat as President, and left office 8 years later, he never was POTUS. If historians look back from 1,000 years hence, logic will dictate that he was not POTUS. For those 8 years, the USA did not have a POTUS. No element or feature of the past can be changed to make him POTUS. It is not possible to change the past. Obama never was POTUS.
None of the laws passed in the 8 years that Obama sat in the White House would be valid, because they must be signed into law by POTUS, and there would be no POTUS. Executive orders, Supreme court appointments, and declarations of war would not be valid. Nothing.
If the military took any action under the command of Obama, they would be in double jeopardy. Because they have sworn to uphold the Constitution, it would be forbidden by law for them to obey Obama, since according to the Constitution, he is not POTUS. POTUS is their commander in chief, not Obama. If they obeyed Obama on any matter, they might be held accountable for war crimes, since they acted without authority from POTUS. Because of the way military law works, there is no middle ground. The military can only obey the POTUS and uphold the Constitution, from the highest general to the greenest private.
There are two implications of this reasoning which are debatable, and go beyond the strict implications of the syllogism. They are (a) Because the military is charged to uphold the Constitution, by force if necessary, they may or may not be empowered (or required) to remove Obama from office, and (b) It may be correct and patriotic to refuse to follow any orders given by Obama. This may apply to all American citizens.
If the US Constitution was changed before Jan 20 to make Obama eligible, then everything would change. Then the syllogism would no longer be valid, because the major premise would be invalid. Obama might be eligible to be POTUS. But this would only apply if the Constitution was changed before January 20, 2009. If an effort is made to change the Constitution after Januray 20, it will not succeed under law, because there is no POTUS. Because Obama is not POTUS, he could not sign the Constitutional change into law.
Obama could step aside in favor of the Vice President. The Vice President would become POTUS, and he could sign the law if he chose to. However, the new POTUS would not be required to sign the constitutional change into law. It would be up to his discretion. Furthermore, once Obama has stepped aside from acting as POTUS, there is no constitutional mechanism by which Obama would be empowered to re-assume the position of POTUS.
This syllogism is true, prima facie and does not have to be proven in any court. The rules of deductive logic cannot be changed by any court or legislative assembly . These are rules of nature and the Universe, not of man, and no court or legislature can change them. No human can make a law that 2+2 equals 5, or make a law to change the structure of the syllogism. Humans cannot legislate that oxygen shall be nitrogen, or declare that protons are illegal, or that the planets do not orbit the sun.
Although the arguments articulated here could readily be used in a court of law, the syllogism is true whether or not it is considered by a court, or any human authority. These arguments can be made before various courts and authorities, but logic does not require this. Lawyers are certainly entitled to use these arguments in court to convince a judge that Obama is not POTUS. However, no matter what opinion the judges offer, Obama is not POTUS.
Therefore, So long as the premises remain true, Obama is not POTUS. If the premises remain true forever, then Obama will not ever be POTUS. Humans have no jurisdiction over the rules of logic. Logic is governed by the rules of nature, not of humanity.
SUMMARY
Major Premise:
To be POTUS, the candidate's eligibility must be publicly known.
Minor Premise:
Obama's eligibility is not publicly known.
This syllogism responds only to rules of deductive logic and cannot be overturned by any human action. If the premises are taken to be true, then the conclusion must be true. There is no law or statute that requires the rules of logic to be proven in a court of law for them to be enforceable. The laws of logic are compelled by nature, and cannot be challenged by any law of man.
Therefore, the conclusion of this syllogism cannot be questioned by humans of any authority. No human is empowered to alter, rewrite, or adjudicate the laws of the universe.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Obama is not POTUS.
___________________________________________
Note 1. The unknown status of Obama's eligibility is typified in a current court case in New Jersey.
It is the case of lawyer Leo Donofrio versus New Jersey Secretary of State, Nina Mitchell Wells. In it, Donofrio claims that it is the duty of Wells, as Secretary of State for the State of New Jersey, to independently verify the constitutional qualifications of the presidential candidates before placing them on the ballot in that state.
Specifically, Donofrio notes in the brief accompanying the Application for Emergency Stay filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, Wells was required by N.J.S.A. 19:13-22 to make a statement in which she certifies and signs off on the names of the candidates on the ballots. The statute, in relevant part with emphasis added:
"The Secretary of State, not later than eighty-six days before any election whereat any candidates nominated in any direct petition or primary certificate of nomination or State convention certificate filed with him are to be voted for, shall make and certify, under his hand and seal of office, and forward to the clerks of the several counties of the State a statement of all such candidates for whom the voters within such county may be by law entitled to vote at such election."
In other words, Leo Donofrio suggests that the New Jersey Secretary of State appeared unaware of the eligibility of Obama to serve as POTUS. If she was aware of Obama's eligibility to be POTUS, she did not communicate this to the electorate.
____________________________________________________
To reply to Dr. Coambs, please leave a comment on the following thread:
http://ginacobb.typepad.com/gina_cobb/2008/11/sitrep-obama-citizenship-nov-11-08----a-key-known-unknown-sinks-obama.html
Post a Comment