I just read an article reported in the New York Times about an Ancestry.com team which claims that Obama’s mother descended from a black indentured servant in Virginia named John Punch back in the 1640s. Punch allegedly ran away, along with two white indentured servants, all of whom were captured and returned, but since Punch received a more severe punishment than the white men, i.e., to be indentured for life, the team “determined” that amounted to him being the “first documented slave in America” (not to be confused with the millions of so-called undocumented aliens of today), but — inconvenient fact — this was, uh-hum, before Virginia had even passed any laws on the issue of slavery.
So, what kind of twisted logic is that to reach what clearly appears to be a desired conclusion? All three men were indentured servants but because one was black and received a harsher punishment than the other two who were white (no mention, by the way, of what punishment the two white men did receive or if there was some other reason the black man received the different punishment he did), it’s supposed to be ipso facto that the black man was being treated as a slave at a time when no laws were on the books defining what a slave was. Well, not so ipso facto. In fact, not ipso facto at all. As I said, more like tortured logic to come to a pre-determined conclusion.
Then, there’s this from the article: “Although lacking definitive proof, the team said it had evidence that “strongly suggests” the president’s relation to Punch.”
Well, allow me, also “lacking definitive proof,” to first say that evidence “strongly suggesting” something isn’t really real evidence at all. At best it’s conjecture and therefore merely “circumstantial evidence.” And circumstantial evidence, as any trial lawyer will tell you, is far from “proof,” much less proof positive.
Second, the timing of this “finding” is awfully suspicious. Obama burst onto the national stage and ran in 2008 and has now been in office for over three-and-a-half years. He has allegedly spent $3 million on lawyers to conceal any and all of his records possible (school, travel, associations, tuition funding, law school articles, etc.). As I’ve said before elsewhere, we know less about him and his background in this modern day of almost instant information that we do about our first president George Washington over 200 years ago.
And NOW, suspiciously less than 100 days before what oddsmakers say will be a very close election, is when Ancestry.com suddenly “discovers” Obama’s link to our so-called “first documented slave”? Where was all this vetting and historical background investigation in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, or earlier in 2012? I know the old saying that “desperate times call for desperate measures,” but please! I smell something fishy here and it ain’t the fish. The routine, liberal, revisionist history is bad enough, but it now seems that Ancestry.com is creating “new history,” specifically for Obama’s benefit. It’s like the Obama Amateur Hour Administration, which has repeatedly been caught just “making things up.”
Besides, Obama has already been a historic president. He achieved that just by being our first black president. However, he has gone on to be “historic” in other ways as well, because his policies and programs have led to historic spending, historic debt, historic deficits, historic waste of taxpayer money, historic weakening of our economy, historic government overreach, historic expansion of the nanny state, historic bypassing of Congress, historic ignoring of the Constitution, historic and classless and clueless challenging of the Supreme Court, historic building of a shadow government of about 40 unelected and largely unvetted czars and czarinas (we pay their and their staffs salaries, too, fellow taxpayers), historic establishment of an imperial presidency (don’t even mention Nixon to me any more; not after Obama), and historically inadequate leadership.
He’s also the most lying, most flip-flopping (uh, “evolving”), most dishonest, most promise-breaking and overall least qualified man to ever hold the presidency. All with the sometimes avowed and sometimes disavowed but always able assistance and aiding and abetting of the liberal lamestream media. And now seemingly aided and abetted by, of course, the NYT but also Ancestry.com as well.
If you have any doubts about Obama saying one thing and doing another, or saying one thing and then changing it, or saying things which can be objectively proven to be false to a national audience and with a straight face, or saying apologetic things abroad about America which are also demonstrably false, there are tons of video clips from 2008 up to the present which could be played in a loop for you until your eyes glazed over and your brains turned to mush. Of course, if you’re a real lefty liberal, good chances are that your brain is already mush.
What Obama wants us to do is forget what he clearly said before and listen to his most current spin now, not to look at his abysmal record in office but at the latest shiny thing with which he tries to distract us now. It’s don’t believe your own lyin’ eyes and ears, just listen to me and believe in more of my hopey-changey. He’s not the most interesting man in the world (although I’m sure his arrogance and narcissism convince him that he is), but he doesn’t want us to just “stay thirsty, my friends.” He wants us to just “stay stupid, my friends” and reelect him.
So, is this “finding” by Ancestry.com supposed to give Obama another “claim to history” as the alleged descendent of the twisted logic “first American slave,” to further endear Obama to blacks, many of whom still think slavery in America is a viable, modern day issue and some of whom even still think restitutions should be paid to them for their ancestors’ slavery, in which modern day whites had no part at all and therefore owe nothing at all? Most of them will blindly vote for him again anyway, despite their unemployment in what even Obama former press secretary Robert “Frat Boy” Gibbs now — finally — admits is “the Obama economy” being higher than any other group at around 12-15% and for black youth being above 20%. He panders to them, but he’s not taken care of them, except through those government programs which only increase dependency and therefore keep them voting Democratic on the modern day plantation.
Not that he should take any more care of them than he does the rest of us, because, if one recalls, he did run on being a post-racial, post-partisan president (remember the “red, white and blue states of America”?), whereas he has instead repeatedly injected himself into state and local incidents about which he knew little to nothing and himself given them the color of race (pun intended) when there was none, has repeatedly refused to compromise with his opponents and has, if anything, proven himself to be the post-national president by apologizing and misrepresenting America around the world. So, post-racial? No. Post-partisan? No. Post-national? Yes.
And since this “finding” is that Obama’s “slavery-ness” is on his mother’s side, does that mean Obama is more black than just the half-and-half previously thought? Maybe Morgan Freeman, who first said he voted for Obama because he’s black and then more recently said Obama’s not our first black president because he’s not black enough (voter’s remorse, Morgan?), should reconsider (again) and switch back to Obama being black enough, now that it’s claimed that his very white-looking mother had blackness in her background, too.
I don’t care whether he’s 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 black or whatever. He campaigned to become our first black president and he was elected, in large measure, especially by the black vote, because he was viewed as black and that’s enough for me. And I don’t care who his ancestors were or were not, either.
My dislike and distrust of him have never been about his color anyway. As Dr. King said, it’s not been about his color but his character, or lack thereof, starting with the communist, socialist and other shady associations he’s had from boyhood right up to the present.
If he were purple and a descendent of the Purple People Eater, I still wouldn’t trust him, and his policies have been a disaster for this country. But, to continue the theme, we need not ourselves be slaves to the way things are. It’s time for a change in 2012 to give us some real hope for a better future. Vote to reclaim America. Vote Republican.