Obama Is Now Showing His True Colors as a Radical
Barack Obama’s presidency marks a revolutionary change in America’s relations with the Middle East. This is not an accident, and it is not the consequence of reckless Israeli behavior.
In his two autobiographical books, Obama appears as a postmodern, left-of-center intellectual. The books were taken in the media at face value, and although they contain some insights into his progressive agenda, the depth of Obama’s connections to neo-Marxist ideologues was only touched upon in passing. The media left it at that, and when he was campaigning, the mainstream media refused to research these ideological alliances.
As a community organizer, Barack Obama was heavily influenced by the theories of Saul Alinsky, who was a non-partisan neo-Marxist focused on the non-violent transformation of civil society. In Germany, a similar model was called der Marsch durch die Institutionen — “the long journey through the institutions.”
Alinsky’s most important work is Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, a year before his death. Its central theme is the question of how to organize individuals into revolutionary masses and gain control of society. The opening lines of Rules for Radicals are:
What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.
Barack Obama is the student Alinsky could only have dreamed of tutoring.
Smoothly, Obama executed Alinsky’s strategy: look and sound like a moderate member of civil society, but at the same time prepare silently for a structural transformation. Obama knew he should run as an African-American candidate, as a law professor, as a respectable left-of-center member of the mainstream establishment, but essentially he was an Alinsky candidate all the way.
In October 2008, it was revealed that the Los Angeles Times had a video which seemed to show Barack Obama at an event with the radical anti-Israel Palestinian Rashid Khalidi. But the newspaper refused to make the video’s content public, supposedly to protect its source. Think about this for a moment. It is doubtful whether the newspaper would have made the same defense if the presidential candidate had been a conservative. The protection of the individual source would have been pushed aside for the argument that the public had to be informed of a matter of urgent national interest.
In this case, candidate Obama had to be protected. Why? If Obama had simply expressed himself neutrally or the event was just a friend’s party for Rashid Khalidi, the Times would have happily distributed the video. Almost certainly, the explanation for the secrecy with which the Times has handled the tape can only lie in its sensitive content. Otherwise, the Times’ careful behavior is nothing but inexplicable. What could that video contain? There is no need to guess. It can only be anti-Israel remarks made by Obama at a party of a close, radical, Palestinian friend.
Rashid Khalidi is one of the central figures in America’s left-wing, anti-Israel academy. The Khalidis and the Obamas shared the same circle of radical intellectual friends in Chicago, among whom the former terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn were prominent members. Barack and Rashid had a solid friendship, being employed as professors at the University of Chicago together. They regularly met for meals with wives and kids.
But when Obama started running for president, he had to cut off or even deny his life as an Alinsky radical (he pretended to know Ayers only in passing as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood“), and the media cooperated, ignoring Obama’s life as an ideologue and radical professor. The possibility that an African-American could become president was more important than collecting information about his politics, his beliefs, his ideas, his connections, and his friendships. Alinsky couldn’t have planned it better.
Not only is the the Los Angeles Times video still under lock and key at the newspaper, we also have no clue what Obama has written in his student papers, as they are also locked away.
We do know what his spiritual mentor, Jeremiah Wright, told him during the twenty years that the Obamas were members of Wright’s congregation. Wright married Barack and Michele and baptized their children. Wright is a screaming anti-American and anti-Semitic racist, a successful exploiter of “black rage” who earned a small fortune with his radical diatribes.
Why would a decent mainstream law professor grace this extremely provocative and anti-Semitic preacher with his presence? How can you ally yourself for twenty years with such a man and get away with it? Well, Obama and his campaign advisors showed their brilliance; in order to silence the threat of his former pastor — an uncontrolled man who had to be neutralized – Obama gave his “race speech” in March 2008. In it, he turned the threat of his alliance to Wright into an accentuation of his candidacy as an African-American. And the media complied.
Harry Reid was right: “He [Reid] was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama’s race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination,” Mark Halperin and John Heilemann write in Game Change.
The true character of the candidate that the American public elected was hidden from scrutiny by smooth-marketing geniuses like David Axelrod, who was able to create a ring of safety around Obama based on the deadly weapon the Obama team could point at his critics: the race card. This is a weapon that, at the moment, is widely used.
During the campaign, Obama’s life in Chicago as a member of the radical left was left mainly untouched by the American media. America desperately needed a bipartisan black president. Instead, it elected a neo-socialist Alinskyite.
Obama masterfully hid his true colors when running for office, but they are slowly reappearing in his policies. He is soft on leftist dictators, soft on Islamic tyrannies, and radically negative toward big companies, which he openly denounces. He recently verbally trashed the complete health insurance industry in America in a violent speech worthy of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. Obama never shed his radical convictions when he entered the White House, but he knows he has to be careful and pretend he is a moderate left-of-center politician, totally at ease with the system of capitalistic civil society. But he, as an historic figure, now can transform the economic and social fabric of the leading nation on earth from within.
To understand Obama’s ideas about Israel and the Palestinians, one should understand the ideas of his close friend Rashid Khalidi. According to Khalidi, Israel is “a state that exists today at the expense of the Palestinians.” Israel “fails to meet the most important requirement: justice.” In an interview in 2000, when he and Obama could still meet freely and exchange ideas about racism, colonialism, and imperialism over dinner, Khalidi said that Israel was a “racist” state, a state that was “basically an apartheid system in creation.”
Obama is getting the assistance of left-wing Jews, for whom the Jewish state is a shameful reminder of their tribal ghetto-ancestry, of dancing Chassidim, and of outdated religious-colonialist ideas over promised lands that cause innocent Arab Muslims to suffer and to blow themselves up.
This is the present situation. It doesn’t make sense to hide the truth. The president of the United States despises Israel. Obama has constructed one of history’s most impressive political careers while hiding his true convictions. But these are now beginning to show in his denial of Palestinian brutality, Iranian apocalyptic ambitions, Chinese devastation of Tibet, the liberating and emancipating qualities of the free market, and Israel’s right to defend itself.
If Obama is Israel’s best friend, it is time for the Jewish state to look for others.
WELL I SAW RASHEED KAHLIDI ON TV SAYING WE SHOUDL RESPECT THE MUSLIM RACE BECASUE THEY INVENTED THE NUMEREL ZERO. WELL IT MAKES SINCE BECASUE HIS IQ IS ZERO LOL!
WELL ANY WAYS LITTERALLY EVERY SINGLE RELIGION ON THE PLANET HAS A COUNTRY DESIGNATED TO BE ITS ANCESTRAL HOMELAND. WHY CA’NT THE ISREALIES HAVE ONE?
The arabs did not invent the number zero, they simply invented the notation “0″ as the notion of zero was known to all cultures, going back at least to the Greeks. Archimedis couldn’t work on infinitessimal calculus, trigonometry etc without the knowledge and understanding of the notion “zero.”
No, Arabs did not invent notation 0 for zero, just as they did not invent any other nubmer notation. These all was invented by Hindu mathematicians centures before Arab conquest of India. So-called “Arabian numbers”, as opposed to Greek or Roman numbers, are actually Hindus numbers. Arabs were only intermediates in their transfer to Europe.
The key points, regarding this “arabs discovered algebra” myth, are: first, the mathematical body of work known as “algebra” is in fact Greek, as Archimedes, Pythagoras and Euclides found it and framed it. And second, the so-called “arabic numbers” are indeed Hindu numbers, dating back to 300 BC. The real arab numerals have as much to do with the Hindu numerals as the Chinese numerals.
One additional point: we now know that the arabs at times mis-translated or erroneously translated the Greek texts:
http://math.berkeley.edu/~wodzicki/160/Euclid_in_Middle_Ages.pdf
Just see Wiki article “Arabic numerals”
- “But the newspaper refused to make the video’s content public”
It seems like the LA Times has the President by his cojones. It’s gonna be interesting to see if any government favors will be granted LA Times general direction.
—————–
- “He recently verbally trashed the complete health insurance industry in America in a violent speech worthy of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.”
Having health insurance is going to be mandatory. Result: The insurance companies are going to become filthy rich. They don’t even have to compete across state lines. Is that a contradiction or what?
—————–
- “Obama is getting the assistance of left-wing Jews”
Which is 80% of Jews in America. There is no significant Jewish support for Israel in the US. It’s a statistical fact
—————–
- “Khalidi said that Israel was a “racist” state, a state that was “basically an apartheid system in creation.””
Does Arabs in Israel have the right to vote? Does children of Arabs get Israeli citizenship? What about in 100 years, 200 years, will they eventually become citizens and be able to vote? The situation is unsustainable. Jews are being crowded out. And unless some kind of way out of this predicament is found, Jews will eventually become the new “Master race”. May I suggest strict labor laws and higher minimum wages to remove incentive to use cheap foreign labor.
Arab Israelis vote, sit in the Knesset and are full citizens of Israel as are their children.
“Obama knew he should run as an African-American candidate, as a law professor, as a respectable left-of-center member of the mainstream establishment”
Barack Obama takes full advantage of race guilt. He deliberate wants the races at each other’s throat. Obama gains power by encouraging racial animosity. The man is inherently a divider and not a uniter. And we probably haven’t seen anything yet! Wait until Obama places a high priority on passing an immigration bill. His opponents will be charged with racism. It is no accident that there is presently a well choreographed campaign to slime tea party members as a bunch of racists.
Obama is poorly read and intellectually shallow. The standards of the soft science departments of our elite universities have dropped considerably in the last 35/40 years. A degree from Harvard or Columbia has often become something of a joke. Unfortunately few Americans are aware of the inflated grades that are now the norm. Obama has said a lot of dumb things. Can anyone imagine him being taken seriously had he received his credentials from a “North Dakota Teachers College”?
I had my first exposure to grade inflation almost 35 years ago when I was a teaching fellow at the University of Michigan. I reviewed and graded research papers according to the standards I was exposed to at McGill University in Montreal as an undergraduate. My students made their displeasure quite evident. I’d hate to think what those standards are today.
Were you a teacher in the hard sciences or those of the softer variety? It must also be added that the affirmative action policies instituted in the 1960s started this nonsense. The situation got much worse when the white majority students also got a piece of the action in the mid 1970s.
There is no grade inflation in law school, it is all done on a curve. For Obama to have been the editor in chief of the law review, meant that he was in the top of his class. It is silly to attack his academic record, the man did well in school.
What is silly is for you to defend his record, when his record is kept secret. Maybe you have an explanation as to why he keeps his records secrete, if he’s so proud of them as you are.
I do not know if kept secret is the right term, rather they have not been made pubic. He does not have a duty to put his grades on the internet for all to see. I do not put my grades up, do you? The fact that he was editor of the law review speaks for itself. That means he was in the top ten percent of his class.
You and I aren’t the President of the US, fellow. If I or you were to run for president we would be asked to make our records public (from a self respecting press, of course – not a press belonging to the commies that puts out only propaganda).
Obama was elected by his fellow students as Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Journal. It was basically a popularity contest. Can’t you see all the liberal law students correcting years of racial intolerance at Harvard Law School.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html?pagewanted=1
I do not if I agree that ones grades should required in order to run for president. I know that my first two years in undergrad certainly do not represent my academic potential. However, I was curious and did some research. Certainly both Bush and Kerry put out their grades. This is funny bush had a c average in undergrad, which means he would not have been able to qualify for the George Bush scholarship. Further research shows that Obama had less than a 3.3 in undergrad because he did not graduate with honors. However he graduated magna cum laude from harvard which means he was in the top of his class.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm
The link you supplied is for Bush and Kerry, and has nothing to do with Obama; as to your “further research” that’s a pile of dung, since there aren’t any records of his available (for good reason I might add) to “research.”
Brian N, You kind of goofed in your support for Mr. Obama. If his undergraduate grades at Occidental College were less than 3.3 GPA, I don’t think he would have been admitted to Harvard Law with grades like that- unless he was an affirmative action admit. I suspect his Magna Cum Lauda at Harvard may have been influenced by guilty white professors. Do we really know for sure that he was Magna C L
To Brian N
How’s your pipick? Help me out here. Am I replying to your reply or am I replying to the reply of your reply. This is so confusing. I’d hate to insult the wrong person.
I think you were attempting to insult the right person. I know it is hard for old people to figure out how technology works. I did not know you cared so much.
Obama wasn’t ther Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review. He was the President which was a titular post and it did not signify he was the top of his class. The only thing he published was a case note, not an article. Normally the Editor-in-Chief write the first article in the first volume of the law review after he becomes editor.
You are correct that being editor in chief or president (as it is called in some law review)does not require you being the top of the class, since it is based on votes. At the Harvard Law Review the president is the same as editor in chief. However, Obama graduating magna cum laude means he was in the 10% of his class.
Could you document that magna cum laude was top 10%? A number of years ago over 90% of Harvard students were graduating with honors. If Obama was in the top 10%, that is impressive, but I would like to see some authoritative source as to what magna meant at Harvard Law when Obama graduated.
See http://www.admissionsboards.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=71
To be clear Harvard law review changed the title of Editor in Chief to President in 1904. Also that nonsense about the editor in chief publishing the first article might be true at your school, but not at mine. Since you had no idea the editor in chief was called president I am guessing you do not know that much about Harvard law review. So lets not present random made up opinions as facts.
Watching you operate here is like watching Clinton trying to explain, “What is is.” What’s in this for you? Why defend your ‘Sun God’? At best he was an affirmative action student. Now we have an affirmative action President. As an editor, he published nothing. As a senator, he voted on nothing. As a President, he amounts to nothing. Quit worshiping this goy! You qouted Mishnah, take a step back and examine the other side.
About that crack about my age, I want you to know I resemble that comment!
I will take that as a compliment. However, I disagree with the assessment. I do not see myself as trying to have a lawyer debate about the nuances of a word. Rather I am just refuting mistake facts. The only thing I get out of this is the satisfaction of pushing the truth, and through that hopefully a more civil discussion of politics not based on made up facts. As in what are the merits of a certain foreign policy rather than a lot of posting about how Obama is a lier and is stupid. I do not have a sun god only the one g-d. You shal not make for yourself an idol. I think he is a regular person, but now he is our president. I did vote for him, and would again in an instant, over McCain and Palin. For your information many editors do not publish anything, that is not how Law Review Journals work. The Journal published articles from scholars, and the law review editors edit the submissions. The editor in cheif, is in charge of all the lower people meaning he oversees the whole ordeal. During the persons first year in the Journal (normally the second in law school) they write a note, but it is rarely published. I just have a hard time with people on either side of the aisle making up facts. I check people in check on liberal blogs as well, when I see blatant mis-truths. I am taking a look on the other side by reading the articles and posts on this site. Both sides like to make up their own facts but it seems more pervasive here. Although I do not go to any hard left blogs so maybe it is not a good comparison. I thought I would give you a good jab about your age, and I am glad you appreciated it.
Watching you operate here is like watching Clinton trying to explain, “What is is.” What’s in this for you? Why defend your ‘Sun God’? At best he was an affirmative action student. Now we have an affirmative action President. As an editor, he published nothing. As a senator, he voted on nothing. As a President, he amounts to nothing. Quit worshiping this goy! You qouted Mishnah, take a step back and examine the other side.
About that crack about my age, I want you to know I resemble that comment!
He was NOT “editor in chief”, nor “editor in squaw”, nor “editor” period. He was the PRESIDENT of the law journal. This is another of the many lies floated about concerning this man. He was not a “constitutional law professor” either, btw; he was an adjunct or “part time” employment discrimination lecturer who got his job through political strong-arming in the Chicago machine.
In fact the Harvard Law Review changed the title of the position from editor in chief to president in 1904. As a lawyer I would expect you to do some research before running your mouth. As a lawyer you know that position comes with a lot of responsibility and time commitment. I lived with the Editor in Chief of my schools law review last year and she was always in the office.
So Brian, let me get this straight. You wholeheartedly support Obama even though he was an affirmative action student. Affirmative action means, he was put at the head of a line not because he was qualified but because he was “black”. This also means that somewhere there is a more qualified person who didn’t get the advantage of playing skin color to get into Harvard. You support a person who played the race card. Had you been in line for Harvard, I’m sure your spot would have gone to him. Frankly I see you as being much smarter than your “Sun God” which leaves me in the lurch. Why when you are a better person than the omnipotent one, do you hold yourself as lesser? You will never be President. Your race and religion will be held against you. On the other hand, had you been black, you would be held up as a possible new savior. Start self examining, and see yourself as who you really are. Without question, you are brilliant and heads above your President. As you mature, you’ll see this is not really a free country.
Instead it is a country with a tier system. The top tier belongs to minorities. You are less equal to them because you are white. And still less equal because you are Jewish. No matter how much a**kissing you are going to do, you are not going to be accepted as an equal. That’s America. We have a few things going for us that trumps the system. One is intelligence. Another is our people. This President would have you going against our brethren. What will you do when he cancels American aid to Israel? What will you do when he announces sanctions against Israel? What will you do when he threatens Israel? He cries for the harsh life the poor Palestinians live not for the deaths of our people.
Everyone keeps erroneously repeating the meme that Obama was Editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was PRESIDENT, not editor … an elected, largely ceremonial position similar to the Queen of England. During his tenure he never published a single article. Then, as now, he’s more interested in the photo op than the actual work.
If one took the time to research candidate Obama, one could have predicted his anti Israel posture and that he would promote other radical ideas as President. The fact that the legacy media purposefully chose not to expose Obama’s past, his associations and beliefs, shows just how craven and progressive they are.
Americans are now paying the price for their ignorance. Obama’s religous belief in the correctness of socialist solutions to our problems, his instinctual employment of redistributionism and anti capitalism is going to cause pain for our citizens for the next three years at least. He will be judged harshly by historians in the future after progressive thought becomes thouroughly discredited for it’s inability to produce anything but misery and a withering of the human spirit.
A few of us were not fooled.
JL
1 – Doubtful the LA Times has the Precedent by the cojones. They are in bed with him, as is the rest of the mainstream media.
2 – The bill is set up to make it cheaper for companies to dump their insurance plans, thus allowing the government to ride in to the rescue with a single payer option and in effect put the entire industry out of business. Also by covering everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, it drives the costs up astronomically for everyone.
3 – Yes ISRAELI Arabs not only have a right to vote and have Israeli citizenship but have their own political parties and have representatives in the Knesset. The only thing they are excused from, for obvious reasons, is military service. How are the Jews treated in Arab/Muslim countries? If there are any left after their FORCED EXPULSIONS AND POGROMS during the 1948 War for Independence (unlike the voluntary exodus of the Israeli Arabs or forced expulsions by their own leaders), they live in second-class dhimmitude, in constant fear for their lives.
Thanks for playing the game. You win a cookie.
You did not mention anything Obama has done to hurt Israel, just a bit about what you think his philosophy is. And you have mentioned all the usual suspects but then you jump into basically blaming the U.S. President for your country’s nightmare that israel has experienced for the past thousand years, give or take a month. I just don’t get it. Keep studying, lose the emotion and add some facts and it should improve. Good Luck.
JERUSALEM – The Obama administration has encouraged “resistance” by Palestinians to protest Israel’s presence in eastern Jerusalem, a senior Palestinian Authority official claimed to WND.
The senior PA official, speaking from Ramallah on condition of anonymity, said that in recent meetings with U.S. envoys to the region, the American diplomats supported and encouraged the concept of Palestinian protests to pressure Israel into evacuating eastern sections of Jerusalem.
Leon de Winter – Spot-on. Unfortunately, too many of my co-religionists are in denial.
Within Jewish/Israeli circles we would term the media’s ‘protection’ racket surrounding Obama, amply demonstrated through their stubborn and blatant refusal to release the Khalidi videotape, as well as MANY other examples,akin to shielding him like an etrog or surrounding him with ‘protectzia’.
In other words, by disregarding truth as the basis for morality, Obama’s hatchet men and hatchet women opted for a see no evil, hear no evil approach in their quest to protect Obama from public scrutiny.
The thing is, whenever rabid ideology, political expediency supplants reality, reality has a way of biting back, often with a vengeance. Most disgracefully, Jewish voters had MANY such inklings into Obama’s reflexive Jew hatred, yet chose to ignore his predilictions. Therefore, they will absolutely bear the onus for whatever ensues to Israel due to Obama’s apparent animus. Surely, all others who voted for this menace as leader of the Free World will have much to answer for too!
“Obama has constructed one of history’s most impressive political careers while hiding his true convictions.”
============
Impressive? Not really, unless you think that doing nothing useful for a lifetime is impressive.
“WELL I SAW RASHEED KAHLIDI ON TV SAYING WE SHOUDL RESPECT THE MUSLIM RACE BECASUE THEY INVENTED THE NUMEREL ZERO”
Which is a fib, like most claims of Muslim “inventions.” The Arabs got the concept of zero from the Hindus.
The media was definitely complicit in covering the tracks of Obama, both leading up to the election, and now as well. What still frustrates me is how anyone could see and hear about Obama, where he went to church, his early background, the secrecy about his school records, his friends and of course, his own writing, and not know that something was wrong. This is a man who has already alienated two of our best allies, Britain and Israel, and will be the sitting US president that allowed Iran to get the bomb. What a guy!
“Does Arabs in Israel have the right to vote? Does children of Arabs get Israeli citizenship?”
Yes.
“There is no significant Jewish support for Israel in the US. It’s a statistical fact”
Yeah. Right.
“Having health insurance is going to be mandatory. Result: The insurance companies are going to become filthy rich.”
Rubbish. The IC’s will now have to cover everything the government tells them, but not charge any more in premiums than the government permits.
“‘There is no significant Jewish support for Israel in the US. It’s a statistical fact’ Yeah. Right.”
That support is diminishing. According to the following link among non-Orthodox Jews under 35, only 54 percent are “comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state.”
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=same_as_it_ever_was_09
Barack Obama starring in “The Arabian Candidate Meets The Manchurian Candidate”.
Normal Guy: Turn off your caps lock, will ya. You’re hurting our ears.
Thanks to the editorials at Pajamas Media I get to read articles from an open perspective and the replies are pretty good too. Now we know why the NY Times reported that ABC, CBS and NBC nightly news viewership is sinking like the Titanic.
“Obama is getting the assistance of left-wing Jews, for whom the Jewish state is a shameful reminder of their tribal ghetto-ancestry, of dancing Chassidim, and of outdated religious-colonialist ideas over promised lands that cause innocent Arab Muslims to suffer and to blow themselves up.”
1) “Left-wing Jews” – “African-American” helped Obama become president but now is irrelevant. His presidency speaks for itself. “Left-wing” has helped Jews survive, but will become irrelevant. Jews will have to choose between “Jew” and “not-Jew” when “left-wing” no longer protects them.
2)”Shameful Jewish state” – Israel is unashamedly one of the most successful nations on earth. That is why it is hated. Its combination of early socialism and current capitalism has brought happiness to its inhabitants by allowing growth and innovation beyond its size. It is the example of Israel’s success that causes the livid anger among the dictators of the world and the impoverished masses. Only America knows that what Israel is doing is of value as an example to others. Others call it “arrogance” to avoid dealing with Israel’s successes – including on the insistence of rights for its Arab minority.
3)”Tribal ghetto-ancestry” – “Tribal” – yes, Jews are tribal; they are an extended family. When a Jewish merchant traveled in the world, he could find safe haven in any Jewish community any place in the world. On the other hand , NO, Jews are not tribal. Anyone can join in bad times and anyone can join even in good times if they prove themselves through acts of altruism. Compare please to true tribalists like the Arabs who cannot integrate their fellow Muslims into their communities from a few miles away decades after their arrival. Thus, UN Palestinian refugee camps after sixty years and no citizenship (Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt)or its tenuous status (Jordan has begun removal of citizenship from its Palestinians).
4) “Dancing Chassidim” – now the expression of joy has become shameful; the world reaches new lows. Legalization of drugs is fine, dancing is something for which eyes must be diverted unless it is sexually arousing. There are examples of Chassidim dancing into the gas chambers, knowing that they faced death. Joy for having been alive until that moment of the dance washes away the contemplation of the inevitable end of all people – that is Chassidic dancing.
5) “Out-dated religious-colonialist ideas” – Zionism is ancient but not outdated. People of like-mind have always joined together for common goals since early hunting parties to feed the clan. It is only Zionism’s ideas that deserve burial, according to Leftists. The truth is that Leftist universalism derives its values from the altruism of those allowed to express it, like the Jews. Zionism is Jewish nationalism. Its critics condemn the “nationalism” as anachronistic and the “Jewish” as atavistic, but they are wrong on both fronts as can be seen by their inability to do more than call names and make ad homenim attacks against Israel.
“Innocent Arab Muslim” – this is the greatest crock of all. The only way to come to such a stupid conclusion is to leave out overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That information is excluded by the push-pull method. “Jews are to blame” is the best critics can do. But fear of Islam is the other side of the coin of the push-pull formula. The “cartoons” incident is the best contemporary example that comes to mind. However, the word “assassin” has its origins in the early Islamic world. Get the would-be assassin high on hashish and then send him out to do his work. All non-Muslims are “harbi” – enemy warriors, including non-combatants. Everyone, according to Muslim Sharia law is fodder for the killing field. Muslims are the true Darwinians. Bottom line: While other possibilities abound, if a choice is absolutely necessary, better for the future of the world to be Zionist than Islamist!
The article should address Barrack as the BIGOT HE REALLY IS!
Poor Citizen above,
“You did not mention anything Obama has done to hurt Israel…” Let me point out a couple of items for you.
He is denying Israel the deep penetrating bombs they need to damage Irans Nuclear bomb program; Israel acquired a license for delivery of more than 300 of these, they have been diverted from delivery and are now believed to be at Diego Garcia.
He attempted to humiliate the Prime Minister of Israel last week by blind siding him with a list of thirteen demands regarding the Palestinians, then walked out on him and had dinner, leaving the PM and his aides to chill in the Roosevelt room. He did this to America’s best ally in the middle east, until very recently, it’s only democracy.
He has utterly failed to slow Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, which he repeatedly promised to do. His attempt to sanction them has been laughably inept. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime continues to build it’s weapons program, fund Hezbullah and Hamas,and aid the Afgahn resistance in IED production which kills US soldiers.It has also brutally put down democratic resistance within it’s own borders, with nothing more than mild condemnation and tut tuting from the Sec of State. Iran is an existential threat to Israel, a nation for which our country has repeatedly guaranteed security. Last week 325 members of Congress urged the administration to change course regarding it’s deteriorating relationship with Israel.
Your statement that Obama has not done anything to hurt Israel is disconnected from fact.
Israel dont need deep penetration bombs, it need deep penetration common sense. You can bomb a country into the stoneage, but it does not make you right or ensure you win. America learned that during Vietnam, trust me. And as far as the Israeli Prime Minister goes, he could use a bit of humiliation. Same with the rest of those pompous “holier than though types” that run that country. They might think that bombing gaza to bits is doing them good, but it aint, only a negotiated settlement will work. Hamas needs to do the same though, both sides are feeding oil on flames…
And if Iran gets out of control, I am sure the United States will take steps necessary to fix that. The US has been doing it for 50+ years and there is no change I am aware of. So quit your bellyachin and get mad at the right people for once, then you just might get something done.
actually, deep penetration bombing does ensure the jews win. don’t worry, though, we’ll figure it out without mr. obozo.
The only problem I have with reading your comments, Poor Citizen, is that people respond to you even though you seem to be a knumbskull.
P.S. This was not a “response”.
Name calling is really mature eh? Does your mom or the bill payer in your trailer know your here?
Dont address me ever again. Dont. And this is a reply young man.
Leon figured it out by 4/2010. lol
Clients are so misinformed.
Many life insurance companies pay claims for health insurers and when our costs exceed our expenses we will get out.
We are now looking at removing ourselves from the black hole this government is creating.
Do you really believe that Blue Cross and Blue Shield or United Health Care are health insurance companies?
They are not!
BCBS and UHC stock is rising because they will be the underwriters of ObamaCare Public Option and you will pay for it.
United Health Care is a brand name used for products underwritten and/or administered by the following Insurance Companies: American Medical Security Life, Golden Rule Life Insurance Company, PacifiCare Life and Health, UnitedHealthcare. The brand name may also be used for PacifiCare Life Assurance Company products. Plans are medically underwritten.
No pre-existing conditions and no limit on insured costs in hospital? HA
Sounds too good to be true?
Obamas Fantastic Land with Unicorns and Botox.
It’s not insurance if risks aren’t spread out among the insured. What we now have is the cost of health care spread out out among everyone, risks no longer a consideration. So of course insurance companies will no longer function in this capacity.
The author is correct in pointing out the ‘mainstream’ media’s refusal to
properly vette Obama during the 2008 Presidential Election, but he misses
a crucial point. WHY DIDN’T THE McCAIN CAMPAIGN ALERT THE VOTERS TO OBAMA’S
RADICAL ASSOCIATIONS? The information was widely available to anyone, including
McCain. Had McCain made an issue of Obama’s toxic ‘friendships’ the media
would not have been able to avoid the issue and the Senator from Arizona
would now likely be infuriating conservatives from his perch in the
Oval Office.
If McCain was unwilling to attack Obama’s radical background why would
we expect the liberal media to step into the breach?
Mr. Reach across the aisle was afraid to hurt anyone’s feelings. He also never pointed out that the financial crises was caused by Congress dictating to banks who they should lend to and instead blamed “Wall Street greed”. McCain was a fool.
Everything about Obama has been known since before he was elected. The fact that some people are just waking up is sad. Is it better late than never? Let’s hope so.
Obama’s anti Semitic views are predictable for the reasons described above (his friends and associates). Expect God to come to Israel’s defense, expect no one to save Obama from himself. The only unknown here is just how much damage will Obama facilitate before he is done. Obama is just living ‘the dream of his father’, which in reality is everyone’s worst nightmare.
Actually, the Muslims did not invent the concept of zero, the Hindu’s did. The Muslims just like to claim credit for it. They did invent Algebra though.
Unfortunately, that was among the last significant scientific advances to come from that part of the world. About a thousand years ago, the highly cultured Spanish Muslims were overrun by more savage North African Muslims and Muslim culture has been in a tailspin ever since. That is why they will lose in the end no matter what. Even if they succeed in destroying Israel and ruining Europe, the eventual winners will not be the Muslim world, it will be India and China.
They did not “invent” algebra; they simply named that body of mathematical work “algebra.”
As far as the “zero” issue is concerned, they established the notation “0″ for it, that’s all. The notion of zero was well understood by all mediterranean cultures since the Greeks. Archimedis discovered the infinitessimal, triginometry and calculus, something no one could do without knowing and understanding the notion of zero.
According to Hyme Escalantee the Mayans invented the consept of zero or absence of value.
Personally I think that Jewish mothers did. The big usual tout is, “Look at you you’re a big nothing.” That’s why Zero Mostel called himself Zero.
Poor Citizen
Can you read? If so try it, you’ll learn something. Like what Obama has done to ‘trash’israel.
JUST A NORMAL GUY (THE ORIGINAL)
Just a small hint about internet blogs:
Please turn off the cap lock, and please do turn on the spell checker. I find my eyes bleeding after reading one of your posts. Shouting in CAPS is soooo unnecessary. It SCREAMS when you do that. You’ll notice I even post under my own initials in lower case. It’s called humility and not being so overly impressed with my own importance or my words.
While what you have to say may seem special to you, others are turned off by the style.
Obama was never a professor. Check it out.
max: I did check it out and he was a professor. Maybe you should check your facts before saying anything
Barack Obama was a professor. He simply never came close to obtaining tenure. The man’s education leaves much to be desired—but he still taught at a university.
The term “Professor” is generally and loosely employed in the Academia. There are “tenured” and “tenure-track” and “non-tenured” professors; there are Assistant, Associate, Full and “Distinguished” (Endowed) Professors; there are “visiting” professors, and “lecturers” etc, etc.
We have no idea what kind of a “professor” Mr. Obama was, while at the U. of Chicago, since all his records are sealed. What seems to be the case (from what I have read in the media so far, including PJM) is that he “offered” once a course on “Constitutional Law and Social Justice” there, in some sort of “visiting lecturer” capacity.
This is from the University of Chicago’s website.
“From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status.”
It took me all of 10 seconds to find it on the internet. Maybe if people bothered to do research (max)instead of making things up for themselves we could have an honest conversation. so he taught lots of classes, and was a real professor.
Did they include this nice photograph?
I’m going with “maybe not“.
No it mainly just mentioned what he taught. I am curious about the context of the picture. The arrow is going from corporations to Mayor. I wonder if he is describing the power relationship in Chicago.
Well Goy,
The New York Times was nice enough to post that picture. In fact if you look at the caption the picture was courtesy of the Campaign. Clearly this picture was not some secret you found or some conspiracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1
Thanks for the link, and indeed it says what you state; however, the term “senior lecturer” isn’t a term that can substitute for the term “professor” period. What he had could be a political job, possibly obtained by Chicago political patronage.
In any case, we do not know for sure (even whether it’s exactly correct what the website you cite says) since all his records are sealed.
Even from what you cite, it’s obvious that he was not a “real professor,” he was a real “senior lecturer.” That’s an indication of how people are playing loose with the facts, a hallmark of this president and some of his followers.
“Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are REGARDED AS PROFESSORS , although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status.Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
I do not know how much clearer it could be that he was considered a professor. How can you claim I am playing loose with the facts when you are making it a stupid game of semantics. There is no real difference between the two so your argument has no merit. You are making an argument out of thin air and claiming it has substance.
@ Brian:
“Stupid game of semantics” ??? You lost another argument Brian. BHO is just a prententious fool.
You seem not know how people inside academia view titles. There are assistant, associate, and full professors, and those distinctions matter. These are all tenured or tenure-track. Those of us in these positions do not consider adjuncts, which is what Obama was, as equals, and we do not consider them as real professors. (For the snobbish among us, the only real professors are the full professors.) But for people outside the system, and that includes most students, it is perfectly OK that they consider all of those who teach them as professors. In this sense, anyone who teaches a college course is a professor.
Obama was a visiting teacher. Nothing more.
No Professor nor none of that.
Where did you get that nonsense idea from. Look for the facts, I know it takes more work than looking things up, but then you don’t have to look like a fool.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
GTD:
You note that all of O’s records ARE sealed. Would it be more precise to state that, “O sealed his records as his first official act of office, in issuing Executive Order 13489″?
I much prefer the active to the passive voice; I also much prefer that our readers should understand that the sealing of said records came by the direct order of this president — and to understand its implications: to hide his past from the American people.
Exactly, darcy, and thank you for the correction.
Based on the people here who post about how ignorant the left are, I am constantly amazed at what made up facts people are willing to put down as the truth. The made up facts are like weeds here, you put down one and another pops up to take its place. Executive Order 13489 does not seal any of Obama’s personal information. I read the order unlike you Darcy. What did you hear that from Beck and now you are happy to repeat the misinformation without checking. Nowhere does it say that the Presidents personal information is sealed. Only information that is relevant to the president’s official acts are sealed. In fact if you read the EO it just replaces the almost exact same order that bush put in place his first day of office Executive Order 13233. Either way it in no way seals his personal records. In fact taken directly from the Presidential Records Act 44 U.S.C. 2201
(B) does not include any documentary materials that are
(i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552 (e) [1] of title 5, United States Code);
(ii) personal records;
(iii) stocks of publications and stationery; or
(iv) extra copies of documents produced only for convenience of reference, when such copies are clearly so identified.
When are people going to start thinking for themselves and not just assuming anything posted is true.
Nothing of what you cited and said can’t be independently verified.
If all’s roses, simply answer this question: why isn’t he making the records requested in various courts available to silence his critics, instead of spending my and your money trying to keep them secret? On second thought, forget about it, you’re hopelessly blindfolded. What you have been citing as “facts” is nothing but propaganda put out by leftwing cites that have a stake on Obama.
He was a professor of Bull$hit!
There’s a link to verify what these bogus claims about him being a “professor” (among others) are all about:
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m4d3-Investigation-reveals-numerous-bogus-claims-on-Obama-resume
All this is very sad.
After the fall of the evil empire, I hoped so much that human affairs could be driven by wisdom and compassion, AND NO LONGER by idiotic ideologies.
Well, there no waters in Casablanca either. You too were misinformed.
If I remember right…McCain refused to talk about anything in relation to Obama’s past…he wanted this to be an “ethical” campaign..a campaign of gentlemen..hahahahaha boy was he fooled.. McCain was about the weakest person we could have running for president.
Obama should have been vetted by the press if nothing else…HOWEVER>>>> would ANYONE have listened????? We have to open our eyes, people are trying to ruin our country!!! Obama is at the helm!!
Will the real Barack Obama please stand up?
He is a complete fake from the word go so do not expect the truth from this goon! I Hope those that stayed out from voting in the 2008 election have now had a change of mind, it is bad and getting worse. This country can not stand another 2 2/3 years of this communist ruining our country!
obama did not hide his views to anyone who wished to apply a little isty bitsy amount of critical thinking.
he got almost all the african american vote so he didn’t need to fool too many other fools to get the presidency.
I doubt that the right will have the stomach for the long fight and consider it a lost cause at this point. the fight has been waged for 2 generations and the left/progressives have made and held ground in every battle ….I don’t see that changing …there are too many who will compromise. as the republican party (almost totally) has.
General:
Let the dead bury the dead. Those who are living will never give up the fight. We know how this story ends. We win! It is the mission of the living to hold fast to the truth and it is a sin for us to fail in this regard. We have hope for all men but the choice remains for every man or woman to make and it is a personal choice. This is a battle between courage and cowardice. The true warriors fight and WIN, the cowards lose.
Political parties do not matter in the least, these are just a ploy of the enemy to set the battle conditions. The rules of war are: take the high ground and present an overwhelming force even if you don’t have one. We only need the high ground. For we already have the overwhelming force on our side. The high ground is the truth. Good hunting Sir.
I think this comic captures what is powerfully argued here.
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/01/obamas-bedtime-story.html
BC Todd…Thankyou. At the bottom, I was absolutely stunned by the Chris Matthews praise of Saul Alinsky.
In his own words he therefore admits to being a communist. This must be seen by every American. It is a perfect illustration of media manipulation.
They are now out of the closet. They can be correctly identified as being communists. He has outed himself. This network can now be identified as at minimum being sympethic to communists.
Since the MSM will not focus on Obama’s radical past which informs his present views, it would be nice to have his whole rap sheet on a website so that it can be accessed and displayed to those doubters out there. Plain and simple he is on a lying binge right now and almost unable to speak without making statements that are absurd and untruthful. The media is so in his pocket that they simply ignore this hoping once again that no one will notice the 800 pound lying gorilla in the room. No other public figure in recent memory has been given this kind of free ride by the press. I am convinced that without the MSM Obama would never have been elected president. Well now his chickens are coming home to roost to quote that communist Rev Wright. We need to continue to use our consumer power to deny the MSM the ratings, deny hollywood their box office, deny Obama our cooperation on all fronts and start to focus on repulican primaries where we can vote no to any Rhinos that think they will BS their way past our litmus tests–ie true conservatives. Not McCain, Not Lindsey Graham types.Got it!!
This article:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/01/obama-set-reject-nuclear-posture/
seems to suggest that BHO is disarming the US; how mush is the people and the military of this country willing to take?
Um, this is one of the main platforms he ran on during the elections, and people elected him president. I mean how many nuclear warheads does one country need. That was a rhetorical question so please do not answer. I think the answer is enough to deter any country from attacking us with nuclear weapons. P.S. when you make an nuclear dismantlement treaty with another country, this tends to lead to disarmament.
67 million morons indeed voted for him, “to transform America.” My point is, how much of this “transformation” are the people (including the morons) and the millitary willing to take.
Since we have been slowly disarming our nuclear arsenal for the last 40 years I am guessing the people have not problem with it.
Regan-Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) – 1987: Created a global ban on short- and long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as an intrusive verification regime.
Bush 1 -# Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) – signed 1991: Limited long-range nuclear forces in the United States and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to 6,000 attributed warheads on 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers.
Clinton -Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II) – signed 1993, never put into force: START II was a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia which attempted to commit each side to deploy no more than 3,000 to 3,500 warheads by December 2007 and also included a prohibition against deploying multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
Bush 2 – Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty) – signed 2002, into force 2003: A very loose treaty that is often criticized by arms control advocates for its ambiguity and lack of depth, Russia and the United States agreed to reduce their “strategic nuclear warheads” (a term that remain undefined in the treaty) to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.
Find a real issue to rant about.
Your putting Reagan, Bush I and II(and to an extent even Billy) next to BHO makes me laugh. These Presidents were looking after the interests of this country, something which isn’t the case with this fellow.
You seem to be arguing with everyone here, and making a fool of yourself while doing so.
CC you clearly have issues. I am not arguing with anyone. All I did was post the facts of nuclear disarmament from past presidents. That you have such problems with historical facts shows that you do not care about the truth. We have to look at history to be able to put things into context. If one sees that the last 4 presidents have made nuclear disarmament pacts then the idea does not seems so out of place. You are a giant hypocrite. It is ok when Regan or Bush did it, but if Obama does it he is trying to destroy the world. Come back to reality, it misses you.
Yes Brian N; I have issues with a president who bows to foreign potentates. None of the Presidents you mentioned did. If you had bothered to read the article cited originally, BHO is abandoning the “pre-emptive” nuclear strike option (part of the Bush and every past President’s doctrine), to the displeasure of the military. It’s interesting, only FOX reports this, from all the state-run, propaganda spewing, islam funded “media.”
I did read the article thank you very much, but apparently you only glanced over it. He is not getting rid of the preemptive strike entirely. He is only taking it off the table against countries that do not have nuclear capability. As in there would be no more preemptive strike plan against Madagascar (it is an island off Africa). That does not prevent us from bombing those countries if the need arose, just takes away the plan. Actually I read got the link to the new plan from a liberal blog I visit. So maybe you should take your anti conspiracy meds.
Maybe you should take off your blindfolds; it ain’t Madagascar the problem, but Iran and a bunch of other “friendly” now countries, fighting our newest “enemy,” Israel.
Maybe you should stop drinking so much hatorade. You are right Madagascar is not the problem, which was my EXACT point. Not having a preemptive strike plan against non-nuclear states is not a problem. By friends I assume you mean China and Russian (not new friends by the way look back for the last 10 years., which are nuclear armed states so we would have a preemptive strike plan against them. As far as Iran goes I am sure there are all kinds of strike plans against that country, encompassing many different scenarios. This would also be true of North Korea as they are now/ trying to become nuclear countries. Try and think rationally before speaking.
Oh yes, I’m sure you “are sure” he has such plans; how do you know that? And is that the kind of “fact” you supply here to all? Keep drinking your Kool-aid.
We’re still allies with Israel, it’s just that the current Israeli leadership disagrees with US policies that were stated before Obama even took power.
Tommy Gunn,
Read your comment about the purposeful complicity of the media in Obama’s election and support for his administration. You are right on in your analysis.
I, like you, am avoiding the MSM so their ratings will tank. I haven’t been to a movie theater in 5 years. I stopped buying the Boston Globe 2 years ago because much as I loved the sports section, I couldn’t give any more money to the Sulzburger family.
I am sending small donations to conservative candidates all across the land. I have joined 3 different conservative foundations since Christmas. I am putting my money where my mouth is and I trust you are doing the same. These progressives are going to pay a dear price for their trampling 7 months from now. I’m not getting mad; I’m going to get even, along with about 50 million other taxpayers who are getting taken to the cleaners by this bunch of freeloaders.
I am looking forward to April 15 and attending several TEA parties. My bet is attendance will be up.
Samizdat – There are millions of us doing the exact same thing you are. I was at a homeowners assoc. meeting last week. The question came up about political affiliations. 24 Dems, 20 Indep. and 18 Repubs. When asked how we would vote in 2010, 20 out of 24 Dems and all Indep. said they would vote for Republican Gov.,US Senator and US House Reps. This was in CA!!
All of you conservatives out there, do not be swayed by anything the MSM is telling you about how futile our fight will be. It’s not. We’re big and getting bigger by the day.
http://www.firenancypelosi.com/
‘Obama masterfully hid his true colors when running for office’ I’m sorry this not true,BHO’s true colors was out for everyone to see. The tragedy is that The American People have been force into guilty consciousness, and they willingly bought the ides of affirmative action rubbish. Some of us with half a brain knew who BHO was but everyone else closed their eyes & ears and pretended that he was a mainstream democrat.
One more thing, calling Obama an intellectual is an insult to our intellect. Do you want me to believe that The man who can’t put two words together without a teleprompter wrote two books, give me a break. He’s nothing more than a street thug with an IV league degree.
Obama was only a lecturer and senior lecturer. He was not tenured or even tenure-track. This means that all he did was lecture; he did no research; he published no academic research papers – which are required if he were to be considered for a Professor level (Assistant, Associate, Full).
Obama is as noted, an intellectually shallow and poorly read individual, ignorant of world history, of economics, and, of constitutional law.
He is, however, a master verbal manipulator, able to talk and talk with ambiguous words, evasive misinformation and accusations of your bias if you fail to be enthralled by him. In addition to these verbal manipulative skills, he is a pathological narcissist. His only agenda is to ensnare you, to put you within his control. For his benefit, not yours.
@ Brian N, RE: BHO’s “senior lecturer” position at UC.
Since you seem to be thick on the distinction between the various designations among different academic ranks and titles, let me remind you that to move from one rank/title to another (higher one) requires additional work and documentation from the candidate, and additional action(s) by the faculty.
The ‘consider these two titles “as if” they are the same’ argument is meaningless, if not stupid. However, it’s not totally out of character from this radical guy, who was willing to draw even Congress into voting on a Bill, “as if” they had voted on another. Adherence to laws, rules and the Constitution is of no concern in this new era of radicalism by this fellow and his administration.
Obama was clear with his radical ways while running. It was just that most did not want to actually listen to what he was saying, and for those who did listen and tried to tell everyone else, they were called every name in the book.
Barry Sotero–who, let us understand, is neither a well-educated man (despite his Ivy League pretentions) nor the greatest presidential speaker in history (nor, for that matter, a constitutional law professor, as the media are wont to say, but rather an occasional lecturer at the UC law school–at the beshest of someone on the board of trustees, mind you–whose lectures centered on Alinsky-Marxist political power-building tenets. He is cunning enough, however, to follow what is known as the Cloward-Piven strategy, named after a couple of 1960s leftists. In a nutshell, the C-P strategy is to overtax, and thereby overthrow, the US economic system by levying a plethora of social obligations while at the same time choking off the ability to form investment capital through a combination of soak-the-rich taxation and related disincentives, inducing a financial crisis/collapse that will enable BS to extend his authority into every nook and cranny of national life, no to mention curtail those personal freedoms that might otherwise deny him dictatorial powers.
P.S. No, I’m not a “birther.” I rather believe that Mr. BS in effect surrendered American citizenship when he applied for college as “Barry Sotero,” foreign exchange student from Indonesia. And that, when later recruited by Bill Ayers (a “talent spotter” for both Cuban and Soviet intelligence), a false identity had then to be created. The latter remains a classic modus operandi of Cuban/(now) Russian intelligence. We will probbaly only learn the full story, as the say, when the Putin archives are published decades from now. By the way, yes, I also believe that Putin well knows who BS actually is, and what mission he’s performing on behalf of worls socialism, as it were.
occasional lecturer at the UC law school?? Well then we have differing opinions of what occasional means. Having taught at least 24 classes at the University of Chicago I think that would qualify for more than occasional. Especially because all my full time professors teach three or less classes a year, and he was teaching three classes a year. So unless all my Law professors are “occasional lecturers” you argument holds no water. Also, I hope you made the last paragraph up because otherwise you need to put your tin foil hat back on.
You seem to be repeating statements which have been proven above to be vacuous and/or erroneous. It was shown beyond doubt that the term “professor” is neither accurate nor truthfully conveying what Obama did in Chicago, but only pretentious. Please, stop repeating yourself, you don’t advance the discussion by doing so.
Brian, you are, of course, woefully wrong and wrongheaded. BS was not in any wise a professor of constitutional law–that information comes straight from the highest-tenured faculty member of the UC law school faculty. And, to repeat, he was given this job on the basis, not on the basis of his qualifications, but because of a phone call from a board-of-trustees member. He also taught nothing at the school besides Alinsky–certainly not the constitution, which he so obviously despises (on tape, mind you) as a legal rag containing only “negative rights.” The true law professor’s interview, by the by, was available on the Internet since at least Tuesday of this week. Feel free to check yourself, if you dare; otherwise, please keep your uninformed sarcasm to yourself. As for the last paragraph, it’s very clear that, once again, you haven’t done your homework. Bill Ayers was well known as a commie “talent spotter.” Why do you think that BS decamped from Occidental and moved across the country to Columbia, where he accidentally on purpose lived within a quarter mile of his handler/mentor? You probably still believe that BS is a literary giant who wrote his so-called autobiography himself, don’t you? Poor lad. Do get back to me, though, when you have … well … matured in terms of your studies and political education.
Cheers,
Dr. K
Yeah lets see you link to anykind of proof, or should I just take your word on the matter. Let me show you how it is done. I did do some checking, and I have actual evidence to back up my argument.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/so-what-did-obama-teach-in-law-school
His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. Mr. Obama was so interested in the subject that he helped Richard Pildes, a professor at New York University, develop a leading casebook in the field.
His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law. Mr. Obama improvised his own textbook, including classic cases like Brown v. Board of Education, and essays by Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Dubois, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, as well as conservative thinkers like Robert H. Bork.
Maybe you do not like that site I also have other professors from law schools.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom/
The next post is from Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of constitutional law at Yale and a former clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer, who compliments the quality of Mr. Obama’s exam questions.
Akhil Reed Amar | 11:51 a.m.: Barack Obama’s exam questions and answers engaged me on several levels.
First, As a constitutional law professor, I came away impressed — dazzled, really — by the analytic intelligence and sophistication of these questions and answers. A really good exam — an exam that tests and stretches the student, while simultaneously providing the professor with a handy and fair index to rank the class — is its own special art form.
And how about one of his CONSTITUTIONAL law exams
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/conlaw3.obama.2002.fall.pdf
Go ahead and show me proof otherwise.
I just finished reading, from the links you supplied, the “exam” allegedly Obama gave his 2002 UC Law School class (remember, this comes from the NY Pravda – aka the NYT):
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/conlaw3.obama.2002.fall.pdf
I’m stunned by the naivete of the “exam.” I can understand though the guy who knows 57 States, the Austrian language, and 3,000% savings, writing such a ridiculously simplistic “exam.”
Just wondering Brian, how do Obama’s boots taste? 44% approval and…dropping!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001629-503544.html
First of all my happiness or unhappiness is not linked to Obama’s poll numbers. They are not a reflection of me but of him. Just because I am willing to point out false statements made by people here does not mean I agree with Obama’s policies. I am not some crazed left winger. I am just someone who does not put up with bull S*&t and blatant falsehoods. And I saw some other numbers today Gallup 50% approval and staying about the same and Research 2000 55% approval. I am guessing the real number is around 47-48%, but I anticipate it will go up if the economy goes up. I appreciate your concern though. How do those apples taste.
Perhaps as PROOF that you know what you are talking about in your pathetic defense of the BOGUS POTUS you could answer the following and ONLY get back to us when you can do .
An open CHALLENGE to all the loyal Obamanation worshipers who post on here in his defense. I notice that in doing so not ONE of you attempts to challenge the FACT that all of those documents listed below are HIDDEN. So take the list of documents that he is HIDING and give us a point by point explanation why each one is being HIDDEN or alternatively show WHERE that information is AVAILABLE for scrutiny. Only when you have done that can you then throw out your wild accusations of conspiracy nut against anyone. The ones who ARE CONSPIRING are the ones who are HIDING the documents not those merely asking to see them and only a blind worshiper would have the reverse morality to see it any other way. So lets see what you are made of.
Oh and just in case you want to pretend you dont know what is missing here is a list .
Here apart from his Vault Birth Certificate are just some but my no means ALL of the OTHER documents and information the Obamanation is HIDING.
There is a lifetime of “missing” documentation — but it must a coincidence — it has to be a coincidence — just keep telling yourself, “it’s a coincidence.”
Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Punahou School records — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
Soetero/Obama name change documentation – Not released
Selective Service Registration — Released — Probable counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released and vigorously defended
Passport records — Not released and official government passport files scrubbed clean by John O. Brennan — now Obama’s terrorism and intelligence czar
Just a coincidence???????????
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released Harvard Law Review articles — None
Illinois Bar Records — Not released
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released (unless you count a one-pager from his personal physician saying Obama’s healthy)
Just a coincidence????????
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
Annenberg Challenge Board Minutes — None
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Almost 50 years old and there’s no paper trail — coincidence, Would you hire someone with this curriculum vitae? The man is completely undocumented. You don’t know anything about Obama — operative word, KNOW. None of us really do because he and his life are undocumented — an impossible coincidence — and Obama fiercely defends the release of what documentation is available. Some of us believe that something isn’t on the level and that we are entitled as United States citizens to ask any damned politician who he is, what his politics are, what his agenda is, where he came from and who sent him. You do know Obama could end all of this with a single phone call — why doesn’t he press the button?
James and Samizdat:
We are on the same page. I think the economic weopon of consumer boycott has not been used enough explicitly. Most of us know not to buy the NYT and Washington Post or to watch MSLSD and the Clinton News Network. Their ratings are in the tank. How about the AARP, about CITGO (owned by Chavez) how about universities that deny free speech rights to conservative students (stop donating, Matt Damon movies (no way), and the list goes on. Remember one things about conservatives, most of us have jobs and some extra money we have discretion over. Maybe it is time to put some strings on this money and make these people feel the financial squeeze they so richly have earned. A come back game plan needs to work on many levels. Denying these creeps money is just another way to weaken them. May as well do this too!!
Poor Citizen:
Are you an’ me related? My Mama mighta had herself another kid before I wuz born, or so it’s said. Some mean people say she had that kid by her brother, but that’s a lie. She had the kid by her brother’s twin.
Might that be you? Ah mean, we’re on the same level smart-wise. Not that that’s bad, I am a shrimp billionaire after all, an’ I had me a sharp little kid who went on to play disturbed boys in some strange movies. Maybe you’ll be lucky too sumday, an’ not have to be poor no more.
Lt. Dan !!
Is that you?!!
Yeah, that darn socialist, illegal alien — look at this other radical notion that he not only pronounced way back in 2007, but actually kept his word on. Why oh why can’t he invade some uninvolved country like Bush wisely did?
BC by Uninvolved are you referring to Iraq who not only HAD but actually USED WMD’s against its own people and ILLEGALLY invaded another country and was the subject of DOZENS of UN Sanctions and ULTIMATUMS and had links to Al Queda and was pursuing NUCLEAR technology. You mean THAT Iraq or some other IMAGINARY innocent country they DEMS and moonbats dream of constantly?
I don’t know what’s all this fuss about Obama and the University of Chicago’s Law School. Like almost all Law Schools in the US, and all non-religious Universities they’re all full of marxists. It would matter little for UC-Law School faculty or administration to help anyway they could, no matter what he did or how he did it, a fellow marxist by the name of “Barack Hussein Obama.” So the argument as to whether he was a “professor” or a “visiting lecturer” or a “senior lecturer” or whatever seems to be immaterial; they would state and give him whatever it would advance his career and their agenda. So take what the UC-LS website states with an extra grain of sault.
This entire problem could be taken care of easily, give the araba Israel, and give the jews California
I think that’s where he’s headed; except it’s not going to be California, but North Dakota. Florida and the South he’s reserving for the Africans and the Carribeans as reparation for the slave trade. The West Coast, Hawaii and Alaska will be for the Asians, to pay back the national debt. I’m waiting for a big Hollywood production to prepare the ground for the “transformation.”
Change anyone?
We’re sharing our wealth with the World, and we aren’t the “evil galactic empire” anymore. He would not have to appologize any longer to the Luke Skywalkers of the Universe.
Why not give the arabs California? Israel belongs to the Jews.
I believe Brian N has the marbles upstairs and access to the “records” on President Obama that you and I will never attain unto well we reside on the earth well President Obama is in office. I hope one of these days some kind of public record will be made available IMHO to show what kind of fraud he is.
I believe Brian N has the marbles upstairs and access to the “records” on President Obama that you and I will never attain unto well we reside on the earth while President Obama is in office. I hope one of these days some kind of public record will be made available so we can “research” for ourselves who he really is. This will be conclusive evidence IMHO to show what kind of fraud he is. Other than the obvious person we see every day turn this wonderful country upside down with his ignorance and shameful agenda based on his ideology.
What are you guys going to do when 2012 comes around, and the country is still in one piece and all your irrational fears were for not? What will your arguments be when the economy recovers? I expect you will still find something to rant about. I have the “marbles” to actually look for facts, and not take everything said to me for granted. If I do not see some kind of evidence I do not accept the premise of an argument. I do not take anything on face value, as I am a skeptical person by nature. That is why when people on this site make claims I like to check the facts.
“naught”. “…irrational fears were for naught.”
Sorry, sort of a pet peeve.
it’s okay…Obama won’t be re-elected in 2012.
We will have a lot of damage to clear up . All we can do is hope to minimalism the damage at this point.
I don’t think BO is ‘impressive’ or has hidden his true agenda (remember Joe the Plumber and countless other quotes) and I don’t think Axelrod is a genius to use the race card – it’s the only card they had – the only way this guy wasn’t vetted was because of the color of his skin – Soros could have scrubbed and bought every last person’s silence from here to eternity but without the race card – forget it. That was the genius after planning for 50 years to get a Marxist in office – he had to be black, pure and simple then because of all the cries of ‘racist’ in the last half century he would be untouchable – but remember also it took 675 million to get him in – that’s alot of money -the LA Times was bought lock, stock and barrel by Soros to keep that tape under wraps – now we can only hope as the situation becomes more desperate some poor little copy clerk has it and will put it out on youtube and we can get rid of this usurper and his Lady Mac Beth once and for all.
“Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
Thereby producing a situation in which everyone is a Have-Not.
“The long march through the institutions” was a phrase made famous by Antonio Gramsci, an Italian. So why the reference to Germany? Weird.
So why the reference to Germany? Weird.
The author is Dutch, and Germany, wierdly, is nearby.
Obama is deceptive and a liar. I do not trust what he says to mean he will do it. On occasion , like all of us, he betrays his deceptive side and shows his true colors. This generally appears with his angry and his sneering sarcastic moments. The super smile is a real key to a man who hides much.
The true Obama advances himself first and foremost and has a very destructive masochistic side . As a typical leftist, as opposed to a typical white person, he cloaks his real nature behind the caring , meaningless words of deep social compassion and at the same time enjoys the trappings of the privileged , greedy life that his business counterparts generally worked very hard to attain. In a short time he has manipulated himself into a very interesting and luxurious life not unlike an industrious,clever thief. How have those fared who were key to his rise to the top? In their stories, probably lies the tale Americans will tell once this once in a lifetime character has left us all behind.
Brian N It is not if this or that happens in 2010 or 2012 it is what has happened in 2009 and 2010 that has me concerned!! We have gone from the “free” world to the THIRD WORLD in a little over a year. What will I have to look forward to for my grandchildren and great grandchildren? President Obama tells us up front his up bringing is influenced from the third world mindset of Marx and Mao and his idol trainer Aliniski. Knowledge is not matter. (Because I state a Fact no matter is transfered from my pen to your brain). Wisdom is spirit. Facts must be assimilated through ones spirit to ascertain TRUTH. You can “see” President Obama’s spirit is not genuine and that his agenda is toward evil for our country.
This piece didn’t tell us anything that we didn’t already know. It would’ve helped if you explained how it all relates to the Alinsky book.
Somebody who translates the German word “Marsch” as “journey” shows that he has a serious comprehension problem.
What astonishes me is that anyone is actually surprised that Obama has conducted himself the way he has. Wasn’t anyone listening? He told us over and over that he was going to “CHANGE America” and it was always in a context indicating that he believed America was an evil entity that needed to be changed, not that America was good and the LEADERSHIP of America should be changed, but that America itself needed to be changed.
I remember a campaign speech Obama gave to a group of college students where he lambasted an oil company for having made billions in profits (legally earned profits that could be invested in the economy.) “That’s your money” he told them “it’s wrong that they have it and something should be done about it!” That sort of talk is hardly left of center. As for his hatred of Israel it can be explained in two words Jeremiah Wright. Why was any one surprised?
And in case it hadn’t been noticed, for those who are surprised at Obama’s anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, this all fits nicely with the the Muslim practice taqiyya; deceiving an enemy in order to lull them into a false sense of complacency.
Two points:
1. Obama is a master of the deceptive rhetorical device of implicating his opponents of the very behaviors he employs, thus disguising his motives and disarming his critics, e.g., in his State of the Union Address, yearning for less partisanship and a few sentences later blaming his problems on his predecessor, or asserting he isn’t re-litigating the past, and then proceeding to do just that; or accusing Republicans of carrying on a perpetual political campaign on the day he rehires his old campaign manager David Plouffe in the face of Scott Brown’s Massachusetts victory; many politicians do this to some degree; Obama is more skilled and persistent at it, his list of deceptions is more extensive, and the practice well serves Alinskyite goals.
2. Intelligent he is, but Obama is hailed by the Left an intellectual; such an accolade does not comport with his repeatedly demonstrated paper-thin knowledge of history. Who can forget such howlers such as: Obama’s claim that, because of George W. Bush’s policy in Iraq and the damage to U.S. influence in Latin America, a Hugo Chavez could fill the vacuum, the mainstream media not challenging the gross ignorance of this claim—Chavez having been elected during the Clinton administration; or when Obama claimed that we must be willing to negotiate without preconditions with our enemies, as Roosevelt and Truman, among others, successfully did; the high school textbook historical record (excepting Howard Zinn’s fairy tale) belies Obama’s claim: Roosevelt’s naive negotiations at the Yalta Conference with Stalin, who was a wartime ally, ultimately condemned Eastern Europe to Communist rule, and Truman, under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, required Hirohito’s unconditional, non-negotiable surrender, otherwise threatening Japan with “prompt and utter destruction,” hardly negotiating without preconditions; and, in another instance, compounding his historical ignorance of WWII, Obama fretted over the use of the word “victory” with regard to Afghanistan, “because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” a charming pitch for an alternate history novel, but ahistoricism: Hirohito was nowhere to be found on the USS Missouri for the signing of the surrender (General Yoshijiro Umezu and Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu were the signatories). It is fair to say that few politicians have a scholarly knowledge of history. A POTUS hailed as an intellectual, however, ought be held to greater account than our current president is by the fourth estate.
Regarding the earlier discussion of Obama’s election as President of the Harvard Law Review: said election speaks to his political savvy, not necessarily to his scholarship. One vital measure of the intellectual quality and success of a given HLR president: the number of article citations of the Law Review volume during his (or her) tenure. Volume 104 (1990-1991), over which Obama presided as president, is the least-cited volume of the Harvard Law Review in the last 20 years.
The only way to understand this BHO guy is to look at him as a front, with others either pulling the strings in formulating policy, or managing the affairs of state. Nothing else makes much sense. It’s obvious that his IQ must hover close to the double digits. You don’t get where he is, on that gas tank. We know the “managers” (the czars); we don’t fully know who are those who pull the strings on policy (but thinking of those leftists multi-billionaires might help).
Take MSNBC; if B. Gates didn’t agree with what is being said there, or didn’t want the people to listen to that crap, MSNBC would have been off the air in a nanosecond.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2079334/posts
“Obama had zero qualifications to be president of Harvard Law Review”
WTKK Radio (Boston) | 9/10/08
Posted on Wednesday, September 10, 2008 4:49:18 PM by pabianice
Now on The Jay Severin Show on Boston’s WTKK-FM…
Severin says he has seen Obama’s Harvard Law School record and says he had “zero qualifications” to become president of the Law Review “based upon his achievements and academic credentials.” This is the second time I’ve heard that Obama was the first affirmative action president of the Law Review. Just before he was elected, the qualifications for being president were changed from smarts and academic excellence to ‘helping right the wrongs of a facist society.’
As with Obama’s Columbia records, all are sealed by purse-lipped Liberals who WILL NOT ALLOW any of Obama’s records to see the light of day. If the simpering trust-baby losers at The Boston Globe had even a shred of integrity they would be screaming for Obama’s Secret Records to be released. Why not? They have a team in Alaska just to try and discredit Palin.
“The possibility that an African-American could become president was more important than collecting information about his politics, his beliefs, his ideas, his connections, and his friendships.”
Or indeed, even whether it was true that his Grandmother saw him born in a Kenyan village.
Gary Allen in NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY set all this out in 1971! Nixon was a socialist by then, due to his manipulation by the power elite. Obama is the latest puppet in a long, long line. That’s all.
Just like it was predicted in the book “REVOLT” http://www.revoltthebook.com
You must have a certain type of personality in a position of power at a critical time to undermine a nation. As we speak, Stalin and Khrushchev are rolling over and hi-fiving each other.
Obama was protected and nurtured for a long time, since he was a teen. You think that was by accident?