Dianna Cotter may not be a household name, but she was at least responsible for a Washington Times 2012 article – pinched from Pravda, no less – alleging that Obama’s birth certificate is forged, based on the astute investigations of Joe Arpaio. As the article notes, in a hilariously incoherent stream-of-consciousness ramble, “[t]he house of cards is about to come tumbling down around Barack Obama’s ears as the momentum of evidence builds. Law enforcement [that would be Arpaio] has found his birth documents to be “highly suspect” as a forgery. His draft card has similarly been found by law enforcement as being “highly suspect” as a forgery. The smoke screen cover created by his birth certificate, hiding Minor v. Happersett [what???] in a shadow of false mockery, has been blown away. Leaving the Supreme Court case alone on the stage, glaringly exposing Barack Obama as an usurper [I don’t … can anyone help me out here?], an unconstitutional President of the United States.” And of course: “The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet [wow] about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama’s Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona [Arpaio again].” Oh, whee.
But at least the author’s credentials are impeccable. “Dianna Cotter is a Senior at American Military University, a 4.0 Student, the recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement.” Pravda, on the other hand, is, as a continuation of its long and honorable tradition of free, critical, independent and US-friendly positions, currently known for investigative articles such as “Russian fishermen catch squeaking alien and eat it” and “Aliens forced Americans out from the Moon”.
The Minor case was about whether women had the right to vote under the 14th Amendment. The Court ruled that they didn't, but that was in 1873.ReplyDelete
As far as I know, Obama wasn't around then; so, I don't see how it is relevant.
Yeah, I know. The ruling was also effectively overturned by the 19th Amendment. But even if it were still in force, what conceivable connection could it have to whether Obama's birth certificate is a forgery or not? Even if it were a forgery, how would that be tantamount to "hiding Minor v. Happersett in a shadow of false mockery"? Heck, how do you hide anything at all "in a shadow of false mockery"? What is "false mockery"?Delete
"False Mockery" is bogus mockery, as opposed to true mockery, which is easy to tell. If someone is mocking you, it must be real mockery, but if they are complimenting you, then that must be false mockery, since they aren't really mocking you!ReplyDelete
Does that make it any clearer?
It's kinda alike the way the G.O.P. is making a mockery of the primary process, and turning it into a circus. You know, running idiots with 0 chance of winning, so they are mocking the system, so it must be real mockery, unlike most of the candidates, which are false candidates...or something like that.
Er...what was I saying???
It is almost as if Cotter has no idea what she's saying. Of course, that's not uncommon impression when you're reading undergraduate student essays, but those are usually not picked up by major, national news outlets. The whole situation really tells you way more about Washington Times than it does about Cotter.Delete