OK, so we have this article I found and posted on a local forum, and it was soon attacked by people who only saw the source and ignored the actual content of the article. This is fallacious reasoning and I am growing sick and tired of it. In this case, attacking the source and not the idea is called an attack against the messenger; a very common and – sadly – often effective method of derailing what otherwise might have been a legitimate discussion.

 

Personally, I am tired of my fellow citizens engaging in this nonsense.  We have a duty to each other and this nation not to fall for or use this sort of argument as it clouds our judgmnet and impedes our ability to make informed, rational decisions concerning the governance of this nation. So let’s look at this as an exercise in how to examine such a piece.

 
Looking in to it, it does appear that there is no truth to the claimed connection to the WSJ.

 
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/Eddie-Sessions-WSJ.htm

 
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/makebelieve.asp

 
However, I was not able to find any information that confirms anyone named Eddie Sessions wrote or even claimed to have written the piece. Now, if you follow Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, at this point, you would focus all your attacks on the messenger and dismiss the story because the source lied. This is a derivative of rule #13

 
Now that we have established that the sourcing of the article inaccurately tries to connect it to the WSJ, let’s look at the article itself and see what is actually in it – ignoring the source.

Wall Street Journal Unmasks Barak Obama
State, National, International, posted by johnnymarin, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2011 at 10:17 am
The following article was recently published in the W.S.J.
Wall Street Journal Sizes up Obama – They’ve Got Him Figured Out
- by Eddie Sessions:
“I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros anybody?) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

There are grounds for the author to have made this claim. David Horowitz has made a compelling case connecting Obama to Soros in his book “Shadow Party.” And we have Joe Biden pretty much describing Obama in the same way in January of 2007. So the opinion here is not without merit and shouldn’t be dismissed because of the source.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’” was the real author.

OK, let’s look at the claims that Obama didn’t actually write one or either of his books. This possibility has been examined by more than one critic, and this is just one story detailing the issues with Obama’s authorship. Having experienced the publishing process from the side of an aspiring author, and having done so in a field and on a subject in which I am actually considered a world leading authority, I can tell you that I side with the American Thinker piece. As for the “Audacity of Hope” book, we now know Obama took the title from a Rev. Wright sermon. (which presents another problem because Obama has told us he didn’t pay attention to Wrights racist sermons). So, from personal experience, I believe there could be something to the claims that Obama has had help in publishing his books. That part aside, it is unusual for someone to be writing a life’s reflection at the age of 34 – unless Horowitz’s claims in “Shadow Party” are correct, in which case, this actually provides indirect support to the claim that Obama has been groomed by powerful handlers.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.

Here again, Obama’s voting record in the U.S. Senate seems to provide some support for these claims. This trend seems to be a continuation of his voting record while in State govt. Here again, no matter who made the claims, there appears to be valid grounds for having made them and for considering them on their merits.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

It is true that, at the time of his speech, Obama was less well known to America than Bill Clinton was when he was nominated. Stories from that time mentioned that Obama appeared to be being groomed for leadership, and others supported the impression of Obama as a major player in the way they heralded an unknown actor. Looking at Obama’s rise to power through a historic lens, these comments are certainly credible – no matter who makes them.

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

 

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska. It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984′s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

These two paragraphs actually point to Caroll Quigley’s argument that the two Parties are actually one, they merely act as though they are two opposing forces. This is another discussion all together, but it does indirectly relate to the topic at hand: that Obama is the front man for his controllers. Who is on the other end of Obama’s blackberry, and why does he seem surprised by the words he reads from his own speeches on his teleprompter?
The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

 

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

How can any honest person who pays attention to the media deny this? Do you remember Chris Matthews’ thrill up his leg? The media had the same love affair with Clinton, which is why so much of his baggage wasn’t reported until after Clinton let the media down. The same applies to Obama. If it weren’t for the new alternative media, it is likely America still wouldn’t know that Obama had a Marxist mentor. Just ask yourself this question: what would have happened to a Republican candidate appeared to be calling a Democratic opponent a pig? Here again, the source of any similar accusation is irrelevant, they are valid.

Now, nearly a full 2 years into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

How can an honest and observant person deny that these claims are anything but true? The list of Obama gaffs is growing every day. And do the media make the same fuss about them as they did when Bush made similar mistakes? No! So, no matter who makes accusations to these points, there is merit to the message.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain .

This is not only another valid point, it is one about which this nation should be having a very serious discussion because Islam does threaten the Western way of life. The most current attacks on the West are not new. They are an extension of the historic record of Islam. This is another valid claim and the attacks against anyone who attempts to expose he threat Islam presents are yet another example of Alinsky’s rule #13.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

 

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Once again, when you understand what Obama truly meant when he said he was five days away from fundamentally transforming the U.S., the validity of this claim is evident – but only when you understand and only if you are intellectually honest with yourself.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

Again, there is overwhelming evidence that Obama makes snap judgments. Whether or not these judgments are based on personal prejudices is a matter for you to judge, but then, don’t all of us make judgments based on our personal inclinations? So, if not motivated by his personal bias, what other force could be responsible for these comments? And if they are motivated by Obama’s personal beliefs, what do these judgments tell us about the man – especially given that Obama’s snap judgments have most often proven to be wrong? No matter who brings up this sort of issue, it is a valid matter for our consideration.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Can anyone honestly claim that Obama and his Administration have NOT sought to lay the blame for the majority of their problems at the feet of George Bush? So why would the source of this claim make the claim less worthy of consideration?

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.
Now this is personal opinion, but as we’ve just discovered, it is an opinion formed by giving serious consideration to very real issues surrounding the life of President Obama. How does this merit dismissing this entire article?
When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

Here again, there is a good deal of validity to these questions – even to the birth certificate issue. To date, the actual certificate itself has yet to be produced. All we have are computer facsimiles and the comments of democratic politicians. But, setting this aside, why have so many of Obama’s other records been kept from the public? If this man is the genius he is reported to be, why doesn’t a record exist to support this assertion? These questions are worthy of examination, and to dismiss them is to admit to the fear of what the answers may be.

We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America.
Make you wonder, doesn’t it??

It should make us wonder – no matter who writes the questions down in an article.

 

HOWEVER, if “a lying source” is sufficient to dismiss anything that source has to say, then those who seek to protect the president shouldn’t be listening to anything the president has to say as he has been “proven” to be a liar, himself.

 

[I took the time to write this because I posted it as an honest question on a chat forum in my home town.  In response, I immediately got attacked based on the source of the original article and its false claims to have been published in the WSJ.  I was also accused of actually promoting the message in this article and, indirectly, accused of "hating" Obama.  The claim that the author of this original article already "hated" Obama and this is just the result of his setting out to attack the President.  I was even accused of being close minded and irrational.

 

I will readily admit to this much: I am angry with the person who made these attacks against me.  But I see now that I am dealing with someone who is close minded and who has little command of logic.  I suppose my judgment was clouded because I keep trying to like or at least respect this person, but I realize now -- after going through this article in detail -- the person who attacked me is practicing a classic 180 degree rule attack against me and the author of this article.  Well, I have given up all hope of ever reaching this person: he is among those who will defend "his man" no matter what evidence against "his man" is presented.  Unless one of "his buddies" presents the damning information, he will deny it - and maybe even after a trusted friend tells him it is true.

 

As for myself, the only defense I will offer is in the sources to which this story is linked.  You will find the Huffington post and CNN in my sources, so I hardly accept any accusation that I only consult "biased" sources.]