tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1965358364885799373.post701195488229390936..comments2023-02-23T06:53:45.432-08:00Comments on Wxxx: Sex Rebel: Black, revisitedWXXXhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06061788963112666012noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1965358364885799373.post-46873308742654680762012-07-20T09:04:40.286-07:002012-07-20T09:04:40.286-07:00I’m not sure what Corsi has to gain by aligning hi...I’m not sure what Corsi has to gain by aligning himself with Gilbert. If Davis is Obama’s real father, that makes Corsi’s 400 page birther tome a dead and rather stinky fish. Where is the controversy if both parents are legal American citizens? It can only mean that Obama is constitutionally eligible for command. And if that is the truth, then the only reason to keep up the charade is to prolong the fantasy of virgin birth, the second coming and apocalypse. That’s just giving this little half-cast schmiel too much credit. <br />Gilbert’s assessment of Davis’ paternity makes “common joe” assumptions that he does not support with clear science. Does the apple fall not far from the tree? Is ideology thicker than water? Gilbert references no research data linking a son’s political views with those of his father. If statistics exist on this subject he did not consult them. But assuming this intuitive claim is true, what can we make of Rick Santorum whose paternity was derived from a long line of Italian communist workers? Do George Romney’s political principles agree with those of Mitt? Is Rand walking lockstep with Ron? Does Obama’s political will actually have anything in common with Davis’ ideas and experiences? Which leads to another weak point in the expose – what kind of communist was Davis? Gilbert takes his definition of communism from the Hearst’s red-baiting editorials of the 30s and the HUAC red scare of the 40s. Davis grew up in the South under Jim Crow. According to his autobiography, he would have been happy as a clam if the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the other laws of the land that define democracy had been enforced in equal measure in the USA he lived in. As he did not find this to be the case, he educated himself about how the world around him really worked. In the 30s when capitalism was failing in nearly every corner of the globe, he - like tens of thousands of other intellectuals - looked to socialism for its more stable economic promises and as a wedge against exploitation and discrimination. As a journalist he carried on the fine American tradition of whistle blowing and muckraking that placed him on the FBI’s watch list, just as it will today. Reading his work, one gets the impression that Davis did want to transform America – not into the Soviet Union (a place he had no interest in), but into the nation which Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln strove to build. How is Obama carrying this alleged paternal legacy? A very good question and one that Gilbert could not formulate. Instead he strenuously attempts to prove that there is a strong physical resemblance between Davis and Obama (although his audio and pictorial examples prove the opposite). And, like Jack Cashill, he draws no investigative links to Obama’s CIA past, skimming over the extraordinary fact that practically no one who knew the young Obama lives to tell the tale.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com