The "Piercing" Has Begun

Obama has carefully crafted a story about his life and associations; one that leeks like a sieve. The mystery has been so great and so deep that many people, myself included, have been drawn to learn the truth. There are too many clues that something is amiss from his grandiose attempt to configure his politics as spiritual symbolism, metaphor and ideals; his inordinate opinion of himself; his moral equivocation on values regarding the country's very founding and survival; his inability to stand for many of the most important people in his life; and his parrying of Muslims - be they in his family, among his friends or simply fans that would happen to be in a picture of Obama taken at a rally. People are traveling the globe to glean these facts in order to sort out this mystery.

Now a backlash has occurred that threatens Obama's facade. The piercing of this fraud has begun. Here's the first video I've seen.*

This was produced by http://www.americanissuesproject.org/.

Naturally the Obama campaign was outraged. They responded by having its lawyers send a threatening letter to all the major TV stations in the country. They demanded the Department of Justice to stop the ads.** They also produced a counter ad. (Obama is also calling for the same against McCain's ads.)

The lawyers for American Issue Project (AIP) were ready since AIP had done its research and written a 160 page report documenting every aspect of their ad before they aired it. The lawyers responded to Obama's letter to the TV stations with their own letter to those stations by showing that the Obama campaign had not proved its claim that the AIP ad was false or misconstrued in any way.

If this story interests you, go to No Quarter. Or Politico.com.

Obama prefers to quash the Individual Right to Free Speech than to blow his created cover. He is simply unwilling to confront the question asked and answer it with verifiable facts. What we are seeing is a Dictator in the making. Not willing to use reason and facts as the final arbiter of his claims, he has no choice but to use force. And he will. If he doesn't get it done now, he will if he is President. Count on it.

* There have also been books, the most extensive documented one that I have run across being Obama Nation by Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. Obama thought it worthy to attempt destruction of this salvo. He published a rebuttal of 40 pages on his campaign website.

**This action is an attempt to prevent Swiftboating. The Swiftboat ads sunk John Kerry in 2004. The Democrats have tried to turn the Swiftboat ads into some kind of evil campaign technique which they call Swiftboating. It was nothing of the kind. It was a group of fellow soldiers of Kerry who knew him and his character and did not think he was of a quality that would be a good President. They exercised their freedom of speech and put together the ads.

The truth is Kerry could have answered the Swiftboat ads with verifiable countervailing facts. He never did. The best he could do was smear the Swiftboaters. The Swiftboat claims stood and Kerry's showboat sunk like a stone. Swiftboating is the most fearsome technique a person can use. It amounts to an assertion based on facts and authenticity that requires countervailing facts to stop its power. Without verifiable facts as the basis for rebuttal, the rebuttal gains no traction.

See "'Extremism' or the Art of Smearing" by Ayn Rand in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal published by The New American Library, 1967, for an analysis of this method of "warfare."

The smear does its damage by initiating a story that is not supported by the facts. By the time the facts disproving the story are assembled, the story has reached a wide audience. On the other hand, if a story is grounded in fact in the first place, it is not a smear. Further if some minor and non-essential facts are discovered to be incorrect, it does not change the essential point of the story.

A smear does not work in the first place nor as a defense against a real story. Although it may do damage, ultimately it destroys the "smearer's" credibility.