Friday, 15 January 2016

It's All Moot Now, Anyway

Obscurantism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obscurantism (/ɵbˈskjʊərəntɪsm/) is the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or the full details of some matter from becoming known.

I watched part of the Republican Party presidential candidate debate last night.  The part on the 'natural born' issue.  And I have to say, that I am not only disappointed in Ted Cruz.  And appalled.  I am furious with him.

He was being deliberately deceitful, deliberately obscurantic about the issue.  A slippery eel.  Playing a shyster lawyer's game.  Slipping around the real issue, by drawing attention to the pea in the pod over here - look over here, folks:

'And some people even say that to be a natural born citizen requires both parents to be natural born - and if that's the case, then Donald, you aren't eligible, either.  Your mother was born in Scotland.'  

Cheers!  Huzzahs!  A triumph of obscurantism.  

People, people:  What makes it 'natural' is that there is NO OTHER CALL on the person's loyalty or allegiance.  The person is born with SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the country where he or she is born by virtue of being born 

on the soil 

of citizen parents of that soil.

The real issue - the undeniable, incapable-of-being-hidden issue - is your father's citizenry.  It is historically the condition of the father that is paramount in such matters anyway:  because the child legally takes the citizenship of its father.  

The same factor at play, in this game, as it is with Obama.

Neither of you is a 'natural born' citizen, by virtue of that fact ALONE.

This is NOT rocket science.  

But the conniving, cunning, deceitful snakes amongst us have made it so.

Color me disgusted.

I was reminded of the time when my Freshman English instructor set us the assignment of writing an essay taking both sides of an issue, and loading one side with all sorts of emotional baggage.  I got an A, and with my instructor writing on my paper that he was impressed by the fact that he couldn't tell which side of the issue I personally was on.*  Watching Cruz last night slip his way around the real issue reminded me of that experience - of how an artful dodger can play the game so skillfully.  

Anything to win the case.

Even outright deceit. 


You are a shyster lawyer.  A disgrace to your profession.

And it's a good thing that it's all moot now, anyway.   With the advent of the New World upon us.

Because I would have your hide, in the old world.  Of such as lies.  And chicanery.  And outright deceit.  

Like the performance that you gave last night. 


* I chose the business about Alger Hiss's typewriter, and the proof that it had been used in the passing-on to his Communist contact, Whittaker Chambers, of Secret material from his State Department job, which issue Richard Nixon seized on for political gain.  
   I will leave it up to you, dear Reader of mine over the years, to figure out which side of the issue that I loaded up with a bunch of emotional crap, and which side I more believed in.
   Hint: Facts are facts.  And hard facts are hard facts.


2) from TeaParryC.C.: ‘GOP Debate #6, Who Won, Who Lost, And Who Is Next To Go’ - posted by Natl Dir. Dee - January 15 (orig. posted at - Jeff Dunetz - January 15) 

Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (January 15)

I am not just disappointed in Cruz for his stand on his eligibility for the office of POTUS.  I am disgusted.  Nay; even furious.   During the debate (with Trump; was anybody else there??) he tried to play a shyster-lawyer's trick on the American public, by pretending that the NBC issue has everything to do with everything else but what it actually has PRINCIPALLY to do with: the citizenship of one's father. 

A natural born citizen is one born on the soil of its citizen parents.  (That's what makes it 'natural'.)  No, Ted, there is no case for one's parents needing to be both natural born citizens.  That was deliberate obfuscation of the matter on your part, drawing the public's attention to the other shell.  Not the real one,  The only case at issue [regarding one's parents] is that they both have to be citizens - period; and ESPECIALLY of the father, from whom one's citizenship legally stems.  And you darn well KNOW that.  Or you are NOT a constitutional lawyer.  You are a shyster lawyer.  A deceitful, conniving charlatan. 
As for the posters on this thread who want the eligibility issue to go away - and thus, want the rule of law in this country, to say the Constitution, to be irretrievably trashed - I have just one thing to say:

Get thee behind me, Satan.  And join that other imposter, Obama, in the shadows.  For, two wrongs do NOT make a right.  No matter how you try to cut a deal with the devil.

from the original article; Cruz speaking:

“Under longstanding U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen.”

To which I have just one thing to say:

Original intent,Ted.  Original intent.

You DO know about that little matter.  Don’t you?  Being a constitutional lawyer - and even priding yourself on it -  and all???

No comments: