truth about enzyte

Secretiveness leads to speculation...

I've just spent a good long time reading a long truth about enzyte discussion at Unqualified Reservations about Obama and his 'biography gap', specifically the years in the early 80s when he is said to have attended Columbia studying Political Science.

Check this lengthy thread and the following thread, which continues the discussion

As to the biographical gap in Obama's life, I linked to a piece the other day in which this was discussed. The fact that there is so little real evidence that he actually attended Columbia, apart from the fact that he seems to have a file there (though his records have not been made public), is distressing. The commenters at the Unqualified Reservations blog, in some cases, scoff at any questions about Obama's missing years. Some people automatically dismiss any such questions, and resulting speculations, as being 'conspiracy-mongering'.

Personally, I think it's hardly reasonable for an inquiring person, who wishes to know the truth, to dismiss something out-of-hand, or to airily deny that a given speculation is possible. It seems to me that the genuinely honest person, who has a real curiosity and a drive to know the facts, has to keep something of an open mind, within reason, of course.

For that reason, I've been rather disappointed to see Steve Sailer making a peremptory dismissal of the various rumors about Obama which have been floating around the blogosphere. For example, he ridicules the idea that Obama, Sr. may not be Obama's biological father. On what basis, I would ask? He says because of the resemblance to Obama, Sr.

Just look at him.''

truth about enzyte

He doesn't provide any specifics when he makes this recommendation to 'look at him'. Surely he might be a little more precise, and say 'look at the shape of the head,' or the nose, ears, facial dimensions, bone structure, hairline, ears, or any number of such specifics. I can look at my own picture, or that of my parents and grandparents and say 'Grandma has that Callaway jawline', as do I, and 'Mama has the Putnam eyes' (so do I). I look at the pictures, juxtaposed, of the two men (Obama Sr. and Jr.) and I see scant resemblance, based on all the physical attributes I listed above. Sailer apparently sees something very different from what I see. Is it that subjective?

Sailer scoffs at all the rumors, such as the assertion that Obama is a Moslem (or even a crypto-Moslem, as seems a possibility to me.
I am not sure what forms the basis for his categorical assertion that Obama is not a Moslem. I say only God knows whether he is the Christian he purports to be, just as is the case, really, with many Christians. There are many 'false professors' of Christianity, and we can only know them by their fruits, which includes deeds and words. There is no way any of us can say what is in Obama's heart or mind. He can tell us one thing while believing and thinking another, which is true of any of us. Things (and people) are not always what they seem.

Would Obama have a reason to downplay his Moslem connections, which are assuredly there? Of course. Would he have a reason to present himself as a Christian? Of course, just as Clinton liked to make a show of attending church with an oversized Bible in his hand. Politicians are very calculating about these things, and we all know that many Americans are wary, and rightly so, of anyone with possible Moslem sympathies or connections in high public office.

So it is not the least bit far-fetched to suspect there might be some dissimulation on the religious question.

As I said in a recent post regarding 'conspiracy theories' generally, when there is an aura of secrecy or a withholding of information, that void or vacuum WILL be filled with speculation, rumor, and conjecture -- and at times the speculation can be wild, or way off the mark. But the way to avoid such wild flights of fancy (if that is what the conjecture truly is) is by providing the real information, willingly and freely. If there is nothing to hide, why not make it public and be open and disingenuous? Secrecy breeds rumors and whisperings.

The antidote to the rumors is for a candidate to be open and honest, not concealing nor appearing to conceal anything.

Sailer scoffs at the rumor about Obama really being mostly 'Arab' on his father's side, and I have to agree 100 percent with him there. I've noticed that the FReepers have been avidly promoting the idea that the Obama family in Kenya are 'mostly Arabic' by blood, with a lesser amount of sub-Saharan African genes. I have to echo what Sailer says in the earlier question about paternity: look at Obama Senior. He is obviously African. There is absolutely nothing Arabic-looking about him, in any feature of his appearance. None. To be able to look at him and pretend he is 'mostly Arab' is to make a joke of our racial classifications. Nobody in any earlier era would have taken such a rumor seriously.

I understand that silly fable about the Obamas being 'Arab' originated with, or was promoted by, Rush Limbaugh. Why? And why is that canard so firmly established among the FReepers? I think it's just as Sailer seems to say: the subject of race being so radioactive, even on the so-called 'right', people contort themselves into believing some very implausible things as a cover for the racial issue: ''it isn't about race; it's about religion' or another variant: ''it isn't about race; I don't care that he's black, he's too 'red''', or 'too green' as another version has it.

So the fear of being accused of 'racism' has driven many PC Republicans to concocting and believing the silly idea that Obama is mostly Arab on his father's side. I suppose it's somewhat safer to criticize Arabs than to criticize blacks, although criticism of Islam gets you labeled an 'Islamophobe' in certain quarters -- but in the PC hierarchy, that is probably only a misdemeanor not a capital crime, as is 'racism.'