Replies

“So, should we focus on her being supposedly “Iranian”, or should we talk instead about her actual documented actions that have harmed this country?”

You have created a false dichotomy: either-or.

By your simplistic reasoning, the Left is quite right to advocate completely ignoring Obama’s lifelong communist associations, and, even more, to ignore his Islamic associations; after all, he is not a card-carrying member of the Communist party (like Frank Marshall Davis), nor a direct associate of the Muslim Brotherhood (like Mehdi Alhassani), so we should focus on his documented actions that have harmed this country.

Guess what? A person’s history often - usually - gives insight into the motives behind the actions of an individual, and allow reasonable prediction of likely future actions.

This is just the kind of context-free analysis that allows the propagandists to sternly proclaim, after yet another Muslim atrocity, that there is no evidence of association with Islam. It is also the kind of pseudo-reasoning that allows TSA agents to treat an eighty-year-old American woman in a wheel chair as being just as likely to be a terrorist as a twenty-year-old Iranian woman in a burqa.

Context is crucial to understanding nearly everything and everyone.

Given that Iran is a totalitarian regime that is a leading supporter of Islamic Jihad, and is fanatically dedicated to indoctrinating anyone in its sphere, it is not irrelevant - in the context of her known advocacies and associates - that Valerie Jarrett is of Iranian birth.

Jarrett was not born in Switzerland; she was born in Iran. It matters, when taken in the context of everything she has said and done.

It is not either-or.

I reject your conclusion.

" Jarrett was not born in Switzerland; she was born in Iran. It matters, when taken in the context of everything she has said and done."

Of course it matters, and I don't suggest we ignore it.

I do suggest that we exercise care not to leave out the other things we can prove she has said and done when that fact gets discussed.

Just putting a pic like that out there, that is less than completely accurate, while failing to concentrate on the things we CAN show proof of is harmful to our credibility and to our cause. It is a trap many of us, including myself, have fallen into more than once.

Just like we haven't really been able to produce solid proof that Obama was born in Kenya, but we certainly can show facts to support things like this:

So, should we focus on posting pictures of fairly successfully debunked Kenyan birth certificates, or should we concentrate on disseminating proof of Obama's anti American and anti US Constitution actions?

Should we concentrate on making the less than accurate charge that Huma and Jarrett are Iranian Advisers, or stick to proveable facts?

Which is more likely to preserve our credibility and further our cause?

There are tons of pics and “quotes” being passed around here that are just inaccurate enough to be easily debunked.

I don’t think that is an accident.

All I’m suggesting is that we don’t make it so easy, and we don’t let the bad ones pass unchallenged.

It hurts our cause and our credibility when a casual Freeper passes that stuff around, only to get it thrown back at them, and us, as already debunked.

So... With all the pics, quotes and memes we are being targeted with that are either slightly or wholly incorrect, or inaccurate, or easily debunked, often by design and crafted either with the express purpose of weakening our case and opening us to ridicule, or more simply, just to get the clicks...

Do you think that, given the example of the oh so popular picture being passed around saying "Isn't it peculiar that they both have Iranian Advisers at their sides at all times?", we should not challenge it, and instead use it as a way to make our case?

You'll just be dismissed and get it tossed back at you with a Snopes link.

Would it not be better to point out Huma's ties to a Sharia Law supporting organization as Assistant Editor of her family's business, (the Sharia Law supporting Journal of Minority Muslim Affairs) and her association with a known funder of terrorism - Abadin family benefactor Abdullah Omar Naseef, patron of said Journal, on its masthead at the time, and one of the founders of the terrorist funding Rabita Trust?

The truth about Huma Abedin that Media Matters doesn't want America to see

Or we could highlight Valerie Jarrett's hardcore communist father, hardcore communist maternal grandfather, and hardcore communist father in law, all of whom were investigated by the FBI. Or her involvement in the Fast and Furious cover-up, or her connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, or her and her families ties to Frank Mashal Davis.

Communisn in Jarrets family

Neither of which will get our faces rubbed in Snopes and FactCheck.org refutations.

If you cannot refute the "fact checkers" because your "facts" are flakey, or weak, or only halfway correct, why go right where your enemies, or the click baiting BS cultivators want you to?

It is my view that frontal assault with The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth is the best answer to biased liberal "fact checkers" and biased liberal media organizations, and biased liberals in general. It works kind of like sunshine on vampires.

So, Trust, But Verify, that Red Meat you're feasting on. You might not know what it really is, or where it actually came from, or what it's true purpose is.