286 Comments

1. Paul:

The NFL decides who becomes an owner not the other way around.

All this blowhard (Rush Hudson Limbaugh A.KA. Jeff Christie) has to offer is his money and his opinions, (which in my opinion are on the fringes of racism, one mans opinion). There are many more groups biding for the Rams, not just his group. Lets face it there are more men with money (Marshall Faulk) that will gladly fill the slot and the Rams will win or lose depending on how well they work as a team and not on whether or not Rush is an owner.

As for Vick, well he is a player (he has talent not like you, Rush or I, unless you are a NFL player?) and he served his time and the NFL decided we live in the land of second chances, so why not (I personally don’t like it but, oh well). Life has never been fair (NEWS FLASH!)

Now as to the “Free Speech” argument, I guess many of you like myself heard Rush on Thursday “Almost in tears”, priceless. But the last couple of days he now is in his normal ranting and will continue until someone surpasses him, “Free Speech” continues, so what is being stifled, it simply is not true, of course, you may not have a radio, so you might want to get one.

http://www.chasingevil.org/2009/10/rush-limbaugh-in-his-own-words.html

PS – I am sure someone is working to put the tapes together maybe all you subscribers can help, since you are all about getting to the truth?

PPS- Beauty Pageant Judge – Now I understand why he lost the weight, to find a new wife, creepy.

Oct 21, 2009 - 6:53 pm 2. Ran:

I’d like to know if a margin scribble mentioned the intrinsic correlation of property rights and economic freedom? Or does economic freedom simply mean the freedom to plunder someone else’s property?

Perhaps the Media’s brave investigators would settle to show us data less subjective, say… Barry’s college applications and transcripts? There’s nothing to hide, and everything to be oh-so-proud of, yes? Would that too much to ask?

Oct 21, 2009 - 7:18 pm 3. Delia:

As I drag my exhausted carcass back to this computer screen to reiterate something I sad earlier this year on PJM:

*sad with a heavy sigh*

I firmly believe that Barry studied the Constitution not to UPHOLD it but to DISMANTLE it much in the way a hacker reverse engineers software by hacking the code.

Think about it.

The average person cannot understand ‘code’ just as they can’t understand ‘lawyer gobbledegook’ either.

Oct 21, 2009 - 8:19 pm 4. Delia:

The ’supposed’ administration of ‘transparency’ is anything BUT.

The ugly stuff being ‘revealed’ is the tip of the iceberg.

Just THINK about the stuff that has been successfully CONCEALED by the ‘powers that be’?

We are in deep doo-doo.

Oct 21, 2009 - 8:22 pm 5. Nick G.:

Amazing. I have a few questions. Where can this thesis be read and where is Klein’s work on this? This is absolutely unreal. I haven’t heard about this — I heard that it was NOT released — but from the link you put Dr. Ledeen, this is one of the those things without real precedent.

“There are many who will defend the ‘free market.’ But who will defend the single mother of four working three jobs. When a system is allowed to be free at the expense of its citizens, then it is tyranny.”

Oct 21, 2009 - 11:10 pm 6. Alireza:

Once again the Right cannot put up with this great President. They first labeled him illegal alien and out of Africa and somehow he got his U.S. citizenship.

After this group making such UFO claims, now they are back at it with the “FUTURE” article that Joe Klein is planning to publish that somehow Obama has said some stuff about U.S. Constitution!! And we all know that is blasphemy! Wow! Wow! What a big deal!!!

Oh yeh, whoever wants to be U.S. president, from the moment that he/she is out of diaper should know about his/her positions and all the way to the White House! Such comments are intended to trash him because the Right has NOTHING else! And I mean NOTHING! There is no Monica and no horny president in the house to catch him with his pants down. Drudge made a FOOL of himself to put that picture of President looking at that young Brazilian girl and we all know what was the REAL story. I call such things DESPERATION! I call it HATE.

Reading such things makes me so much worry about his safety, when they get repeated OVER and OVER again on FOX TV and watched by bunch of coach potato men out of work, hope and fear of blacks moves them to harm him. Yes, I get chill and fear with too many NRA wackos, so many guns, so much alcohol and SICK people, while they continuously watch FOX. These ingredients when mix together is truly dangerous.

Oct 22, 2009 - 1:07 am 7. Jjim in Virginia:

Alireza, are you a product of the American educatioanal system or is English your second language?

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:02 am 8. Waylander:

Delia–great comments! You are reflecting my own inner fears about the insidious nature of this administration.
How else should we interpret a gaggle of czars who seem to be openly praising or aligning themselves with Mao Ze Dong?
It’s getting scary out there for sure…

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:55 am 9. BMOON:

Alizera displays the same strange and worrisome characteristics the the modern Leftist-statist – an inability to read, think, analyze, and rationally dialogue. Rather than discussing a topic and the information presented, they just mindlessly grasp onto their own irrational propaganda talking points. Makes me feel like we are in a sci-fi movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s15PvvAt4lo

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:57 am 10. mcar:

Am I missing something? In addition to everything else wrong with it, isn’t the quoted material sophomoric, immature and badly written, if not ungrammatical? Would not an objective professor have said something in the margin about those things? If this is what passed for cogent thought at an Ivy League school 25 years ago, one can only imagine what gets by now.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:14 am 11. shiraz:

Alireza please have something of substance to say rather than lashing back to defend something indefensible!!! Obama nation is as blind, as illiterate historically and politically and as ignorant as any such people throughout our troubled human history but this time they will fail big.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:45 am 12. David W. Lincoln:

Michael, the credibility of the sinister force in the Oval Office, and his fellow deformed souls with their paws on the levers of power inside the beltway, the credibility is as beyond reform as a terminally
ill patient is beyond treatment.

The paradigm is the same, whether it is economics, foreign affairs, or what have you. Therefore, take a look at this, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Bailouts+spark+caps+Goldman+wriggles+through/2130507/story.html and the comment made the earliest.

For, in all honesty, there is no reforming possible of the deformed souls with their paws on the levers of power inside the Beltway, and their allies elsewhere.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:52 am 13. Michael Ledeen:

several people who had bought into the “racist” remarks nonsense have now retracted and some even apologized, as they should.

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:19 pm 14. Pajamas Media » Obama and the Constitution: He Has His Doubts:

[...] Read the entire article here. [...]

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:37 pm 15. Thomas_L.....:

A lot of us of a certain age may have held some, frankly, ridiculous notions at some time in their feckless youth.
“I’d like to know what he thinks of those words today. And what about the rest of the thesis?” Good questions Michael.

Oct 22, 2009 - 2:50 pm 16. Marc Malone:

Alireza is a foreign Arab. She has posted here before, time to time. Her rants are all like this, representing the propoganda she has been fed. Pay her screeds no mind. She’s not a troll. She is just grossly misinformed.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:03 pm 17. Alireza:

Jjim in Virginia: “Alireza, are you a product of the American educational system or is English your second language?”

Yes English is my 2nd language. I wonder if it is my English that is making you antsy or what I wrote. Given that you voted for Bush and keep hearing him talk that tells me you have low you could put up with worse English than mine.

I think you are just one unhappy miserable person in Virginia wishing for Jefferson era when trades of many things were free and you could just enjoy your farm!!!

Reading other comments here is one more proof that Republicans are TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY and CATEGORICALLY have lost their mind. And all they are doing these days is to keep themselves validated by bubbled and toxic places like Fox TV! You people just DON’T GET IT!

You people must be declared protected species for future studies and educational purpose. You are also a danger to your own kind and that is causing more and more of you falling down!

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:14 pm 18. Christopher J Burton:

The issue here is one of precision in the use of language. The framers of the Magna Charta and the US declaration of independence had no problem using unambiguous terminology to say what they intended. The left on the other hand, from Marx through Obama follow the Orwellian method of double speak. “Freedom” becomes merely a term to further the goals of State control. I am waiting for them to tell us that “Work will set you free”.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:16 pm 19. wwwild:

Why would he say “so-called Founders”, is that somehow in question?

More importantly, when he writes “… did not allow for economic freedom. … the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned.”, I think this lays bare his Marxism. That is, to Obama: economic freedom = distribution of wealth!

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:30 pm 20. venividivici:

Yes English is my 2nd language.

Is “human being” your 2nd species?

I’d like to know if a margin scribble mentioned the intrinsic correlation of property rights and economic freedom?

The ultimate political freedom is the freedom to sell your belongings and use the proceeds to head to another polity that more closely matches your preferences. In order to accomplish that, you need robust property rights to being with.

There’s a reason why the Berlin Wall kept people IN East Germany.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:33 pm 21. goy:

While I don’t necessarily share Alireza’s hyperventilating apoplexy, this one excerpt in and of itself is a bit of a red herring, I think.

These days – and even (especially?) in the days when BHO was in college – students aren’t paying attention to their professors if they’re not regurgitating nonsense like this before they graduate.

That’s not nearly as problematic as BHO’s statements – made years later at a point when he should have long since grown out of his adolescent marxism – lamenting the Constitution as a list of negative liberties and strategizing ways to implement “reparative” wealth redistribution.

To Alireza: I’m curious – what don’t we “GET” exactly? That BHO is a marxist/socialist/corporatist/fascist? This thesis excerpt is no indictment on its own, but it does demonstrate that the current President of the United States has had marxist fantasies that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution since his twenties. One doesn’t need to have lost one’s mind to make that observation, nor to assess it as harmful to America. Get a grip.

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:34 pm 22. Abe:

Addressing the actual quote:

“The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned.”

The constitution doesn’t grant me any right to set policies, it “merely” recognizes my right to influence them by participating in the political arena. Similarly, the constitution doesn’t grant me the “right” to other people’s money, it recognizes my right to acquire some by participating in the marketplace.

Simple enough for ya, Barry?

Oct 22, 2009 - 3:48 pm 23. John "birther" Samford:

“They first labeled him illegal alien and out of Africa and somehow he got his U.S. citizenship.”

Factually inaccurate, sir!
Only the Left has made your claim. That was the strawman argument used to counter the asrgument that Berry is NOT a”NATURAL BORN” American citizen.
I realize the difference between American Citizen and NATURAL BORN American citizen confuses a lot of barking moonbats.
It is really quite simple. If one is born in a US State, terrority or on a military base which is considered ‘US Soil’ by treaty, then they are a NATURAL BORN citizen.
One can become an American citizen no matter where you are born. However, those not NATURAL BORN are not eligible to run for POTUS.
Berry’s problem is that he used a forged birth certificate to run for Senator. Requirements for Senator are not the same as for POTUS, so it really didn’t matter what he showed. I doubt that it was even examined.
Once he used that forgery, he was locked in. Showing up with a second BC for President would have raised to many eyebrows.
SO now that his real birth certificate from Kenya is floating around the WWW, a rational person has to ask, “which one is real and which one is bogus?”
When you consider that once Berry is out of office, ALL the legislation he passed will be null and void unless he produces a BC that will pass a forensics examination.
If he could do that, why hasn’t he?
Our theoretical rational person has to wonder why all this trouble over something that is doomed to unravel as soon as Berry leaves office. The first answer that pops to mind is that he isn’t planning on leaving office. President-for-life Berry the First?

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:15 pm 24. Abe:

So let’s see.

An adult Obama, a supposed “top student” majoring in Political Science, wrote a “senior seminar” paper. In this paper, in which he does not have to hide or sugarcoat his views to the extent he does as a politician, he not only expresses radical economic views, but also attacks the constitution itself, explicitly.

Once this comes to the attention of some people here, they express concern, and wonder how much of the views Obama expressed in his paper inform the policies of his current administration

According to Alireza, such a response constitutes “DESPERATION!” It is “HATE.” It gives her “chill and fear.” Expressing such views indicates one pines for slavery. It is “proof that Republicans are TOTALLY, ABSOLUTELY and CATEGORICALLY have lost their mind.” [Sic throughout]

Gee, imagine how terrified she would be if people here were to start obsessing about banners (”Mission Accomplished”) or supposed fake turkeys.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:26 pm 25. Texexpatriate:

Those of you who read Alireza’s silly and vicious opinions must understand what we face. She must be a Muslim or regular Democrat. Paul, the first commentator, doesn’t seem to make much sense either. What we have in Obama and the Obama administration is a socialist putsch. Genuine Americans (as opposed to most Democrats and all Liberals) can stop this if we all stay active.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:35 pm 26. Phil:

Alireza,

Is your first language Farsi? Just curious.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:38 pm 27. baal:

Obama said that he is a constitutional law scholar…I know lots of scholars as I live in a family full of obnoxiously scholarly scholars. They all have a body of peer reviewed work that is available on request. That’s how they get to claim to be scholars. I’d love to see this body of peer reviewed work from Obama. If it exists, it might prove to be most illuminating.

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:48 pm 28. PM:

A little touchy there Ms. Alireza?

Oct 22, 2009 - 4:59 pm 29. Porkov:

Alireza -
Is it hate that bothers you, or that anyone would have the gall to oppose President Obama? Is there a difference?
How do you feel about President Bush?

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:00 pm 30. tanstaafl:

Barack Obama in very recent years (long after Columbia) has wondered why the Supreme Court of the United States hasn’t addressed “redistributive change” in the spirit of imposing “economic justice”* in the nation.

Maybe Sonia Sotomayor, after a quiet first year or so, will be helping formulate such kinds of rulings on Barack’s behalf.

Never mind that it isn’t in her job description.

(*you notice how everything on the Left these days includes the word “justice”. Like…climate justice ? WTF is “climate justice” anyway, when third world countries like Nigeria, Lagos is practically on fire, who really do trash the planet get some kind of pass on their behaviors ?)

I firmly believe that Barry studied the Constitution not to UPHOLD it but to DISMANTLE it…

What other conclusion is there to draw ? It’s almost funny when Obama makes occasional paeans these days to “this great country” to try to gloss over his contempt.

The Bill of Rights, per Barack, is a litany of negative liberties. (his exact words)

Positive liberties will ensue when Sonia (and the individual who replaces the likely soon to be replaced Ginsberg) really get to work permanently altering the fabric of the country.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:02 pm 31. Swamp Thing:

As to professors – try Charles Hamilton. Just guessin’ here, but Hamilton used to brag in class about helping to let the dead vote for Kennedy and against Nixon in . . .

drum roll please

Chicago.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:17 pm 32. baal:

OBAMA:”I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.”

What did he do? He turned tricks for slumlord TONY REZKO.

OBAMA:”plutocratic thugs with one hand on the money and the other on the government.”

What did he do? He shined Putin’s boots with his tongue.

OBAMA:”… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.”

What did he do? Well after turning tricks for a slumlord and shining Putin’s Jackboots with his tongue, it’ll be hard to follow those class acts, but I’m sure he’s got something equally as scummy in mind.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:21 pm 33. Now and Then:

I’ve read the Bible cover to cover more than once, but I don’t consider myself an expert. Just curious. Not judging. Just curious. Who here graduated cum laude from Harvard Law? Lectured on constitutional law for 12 years? Anybody? Who here considers themselves an expert on the conshtitushun and why? (Saying you’ve read it ain’t enough. Sorry, saying you’ve read “Rescuing Sprite” ain’t enough either.)

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:23 pm 34. Delia:

23. N&T,

What ‘constitutes’ learning?

Practice?

Rote?

Methodology?

If Barry is poorly read but well-experienced in life then he is ‘learned’.

if Barry is poorly read and inexperienced he needs some home-trainin’ in the worst way.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:27 pm 35. George S.:

how this freak of a narcissist made it to the presidency of the USA is truly scary.

that he could actually put those words to paper explain his entire disregard for american principals and law in general.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:33 pm 36. Delia:

25. George S.,

Yeah that “Fundamental Change” part is kinda sinkin’ into some folks now.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:36 pm 37. homero:

Michael Ledeen …I always appreciate your pieces.

thanks for bring this to light again.

regards

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:38 pm 38. Patrick Of Atlantis:

Judging from his words and acts and especially his appointment of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, I don’t think that Obama has a very high regard for the Constitution or the men who wrote it. But then neither does the crowd who voted him into office.

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:38 pm 39. Cybergeezer:

3. Delia:
Oct 21, 2009 – 8:19 pm
Oct 21, 2009 – 8:22 pm

You’re on the truth, honey!
Go tell it to the mountain!

Oct 22, 2009 - 5:43 pm 40. Now and Then:

Here’s a thought. Let’s have Sarah Palin and Alan Grayson debate the Constitution. She’s been doing some book learning, right?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/32202

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:16 pm 41. Delia:

28. Cybergeezer,

Thank you, Cyb.

N&T,

You confuse “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” with “Two wrongs”. In fact, I think you live by “TWO WRONGS” as an excuse for posting all of your nonsense here. Two wrongs never make a right. Bad things will always be bad things. The LEFT and the RIGHT make plenty of them.

Politicians are all scum imho. That’s why they are POLITICIANS. POWER/SEX/GREED = Politicians.

And THESE are the asshats who are supposedly representing us?

Sarah Palin? SO, N&T, you’re agreeing with me that Barry is poorly read and a doofus to boot?

Thank you for the confirmation.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:25 pm 42. Delia:

You Leftist crack me up when you come out with the whole ‘Your idiot is as bad our idiot’ meme, all the while showing your hand that you indeed realize YOUR guy is a complete IDIOT.

Good grief.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:33 pm 43. Delia:

P.S. Rather than comparing Barry to Palin, you Leftists would be better off comparing Barry to an amoeba to show off his stellar and exemplary intellect.

I must admit though… When I read Barry’s thesis on how to kill whitey I was impressed…most impressed.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:39 pm 44. newscaper:

Sigh.
The key is that ‘economic freedom’ in Obama’s world is of the FDR sort, “freedom from…” meaning someone else should pay.

Actually the single greatest flaw in the Constitution (apart from the intractable at the time slavery question) is it not being more specific about true economic freedom.

But to keep the historical context, what we have today is so foreign to the FFs that they didn’t anticipate addressing it. They knew about mercantilism and royal monopolies, but not the poison of Marxism. Adam Smith only came into play in the same decades.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:42 pm 45. Mike Jefferson:

Nah, the media is too busy dumpster diving trying to find Carrie Prejean’s boobs.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:43 pm 46. tinmouth:

Delia, you are right on. The skinny on Comrade Barry was available long before the election, but we had to look for it because nobody wanted to put it out where we could see it.
Re his article: Yes, I think we were as a nation headed for another aristocracy. That is, until the Jacksonians stormed the White House and put the “public” into the “republic.” Barry doesnt want to understand that. He better be careful because the Jacksonians are still here, and strong.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:51 pm 47. Delia:

33. newscaper,

And, the ‘haves’ and ‘havenots’ want to get rid of the ‘want-to-haves’ which is economic suicide.

Oct 22, 2009 - 6:55 pm 48. Gianni:

Someone above mentioned that conservatives are angry because Obama is presumably squeaky clean and nothing can be pinned on him, such as Monica with President Clinton. Uh, dude, in the sex and drugs scandal area, Obama has something MUCH worse than Monica. He has Larry Sinclair. Yep, back in 1999 in Chicago Larry and Barry hooked up twice and shared cocaine and gay sex. Of course the mainstream media, firmly in the back pocket of Obama, has whitewashed the story. But try as they might to ignore it, it just hasn’t worked. You see, Sinclair has published a book outlining the sordid story as well as the incredible series of attacks on him that have been perpetrated by Obama sycophants over the past year and a half. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of the book. It’s titled Barack Obama and Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies, and Murder? Learn about the real Obama for a change. It’s an engrossing read.

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:27 pm 49. goy:

@23. Now and Then: – Who here graduated cum laude from Harvard Law? Lectured on constitutional law for 12 years?

Who here thinks appeal to authority fallacy is sufficient reason to ignore BHO’s marxist adolescence? Oh, that would be you. By yourself.

Oct 22, 2009 - 7:43 pm 50. octogalore:

As a former attorney now in the businessworld working with attorneys, I see many people with scholarly resumes at the level of Obama’s. It’s great, but it’s hardly the be-all, end-all qualification to be Prez. Most of the Constitutional Law profs at my law school (and these were Full Professors, not part-time Lecturers) couldn’t govern their way out of a paper bag. That’s a major red herring of an argument.

In the business world, we have a saying about the people who teach the fields that we are monetizing: “those who can’t do…”

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:05 pm 51. Tcobb:

Ah well–stupid is as stupid does. This is our first Affirmative Action President. If he was white, with his qualifications and background, he couldn’t have got elected to the position of garbage collector of Podunk N.Y.

When reality hits pretending is not a viable strategy. But that’s what Affirmative Action has always been about–pretending.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:10 pm 52. Delia:

35. goy,

President Washington was homeschooled.

Nuff said?

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:10 pm 53. Moho:

Ledeen, there’s nothing particularly controversial about that statement. There’s a similar note about the hypocrisy of the Constitution in my Political Science book from college, put out by CQ Quarterly–not known for being socialists or fascists or whatever bs your peddling at the moment.

Why don’t we concentrate on what you’ve said…

I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” That’s at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I’ve ever heard, by the way).
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTFhZGQ4Y2IyZmNlY2QyNDkwZTlkZjFkYjZiNWY0YzU=

Do you dispute this? Was Goldberg lying?

If not, are you aware that your advocacy helped push us into a war that killed four thousand Americans and that was completely baseless? Even by your own metric, it showed no one who was boss…it showed that the US was run by idiots. Obama could have written about taking a dump on the constitution, your crimes are a thousand times worse. The only way you can still show yourself in public is that you were apparently born without the ability to develop a conscience or integrity.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:12 pm 54. Moho:

If he was white, with his qualifications and background, he couldn’t have got elected to the position of garbage collector of Podunk N.Y.

Yeah, the skys the limit when you’re a black man, no doubt about that. The only problem at the Democratic convention was deciding which college educated black man would do…there were about 2 million of them lined up outside the door. It was a hell of a doozey of a choice. By contrast, its simply a miracle that every President before him was white. How did they ever beat out all of those black men? Truly, there must be some kind of white lord looking over us all. I mean you all.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:15 pm 55. Delia:

Some of the most intellectually superior people who helped develop our country were homeschooled/home-schooled.

A ‘liberal’ education does not an education make.

Some of the brightest people skip college and pursue their dreams and put the college kiddies to shame.

There is something to be said for ‘experience’ and no, I’m not talking about the Leftist version rife with anal warts, crabs, Herpes and AIDS. I’m speaking of having experience in LIFE running a business, interaction in real life circumstances and being and actual active person helping your own.

Barry strikes me as someone who can barely tie his own shoe-laces without direction or tell Michelle she isn’t butt fugly without a teleprompter and a vat of beer-goggle bravery and a bucket load of lube.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:16 pm 56. Delia:

39. Moho,

There are some wonderful, beautiful, intellectual, respectable people who are ‘other than white’ that would have made a great prez.

Using a mulatto mutt as the first supposed ‘black’ man is an embarrassment to black people and white people.

Really.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:23 pm 57. Jadis:

Alireza – You’re awfully full of hate. What makes your animosity towards the MILLIONS of Fox News viewers anymore valid than the animosity many people feel towards Obama? And before you get self-righteous with me, I don’t hate Obama and I certainly do not want the President of my country to fail.

I hear the left bleating endlessly about tolerance, but have met very few who actually practice it. I work with almost all liberals, so yes, I know quite a few of them and yes, I do feel qualified to make that assessment. I have worked with these people for 10 years. How many “NRA wackos” do you personally know and how well do you know them?

Fox News is no more biased than any other American media outlet. Their only “crime” is having the audacity to air a different perspective. I have posted on here several times quite a few examples of the type of “fair and balanced” journalism practiced by other media outlets in America, and no one wants to address them. Apparently, biased reporting is perfectly acceptable to the left – as long as it’s biased in the proper direction.

You fear people you don’t even know – but I have seen far more of the left than I ever cared to, and they scare the hell out of me. There are, of course, some wonderful liberals out there who practice tolerance, respect and can appreciate diversity of ideas, instead of just diversity of skin color. But the majority of leftists I have encountered tend to be hateful, spiteful, intolerant and arrogant people.

Sincerely,

A proud member of the NRA

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:24 pm 58. Delia:

I will give genetic credit where it’s due though. B.O.’s daughters are both absofreakin’lutely gorgeous and adorable.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:26 pm 59. Tcobb:

MohoYeah, the skys the limit when you’re a black man, no doubt about that.
When Affirmative Action, or “diversity” runs riot, and competence runs a distance third, society tends to suffer. Anytime competence is given a secondary role, society suffers. And there is always a backlash. Always.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:33 pm 60. Moho:

Delia: Using a mulatto mutt as the first supposed ‘black’ man is an embarrassment to black people and white people.

Explain.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:44 pm 61. Moho:

TCobb.

When Affirmative Action, or “diversity” runs riot, and competence runs a distance third, society tends to suffer. Anytime competence is given a secondary role, society suffers. And there is always a backlash. Always.

You’re absolutely right. When the previous President, a recipient of affirmative action in the form of legacy admission to Yale, demonstrated eight years of incompetence, there was indeed a striking backlash. It was so great that not even you weaseling liars could countenance it and still hang your head whenever the name is mentioned, pretending that you had no part in electing him and didn’t seek to protect his onslaught of incompetence for the duration of his term. It was so great that the Republican party has suffered, perhaps, permanent damage, and may be ripe for a take-over by a whig-like know-nothing band of ignoramuses who will surely run the part so much further into the ground that their new headquarters address will be written in Chinese characters. You’re absolutely right.

Oct 22, 2009 - 8:49 pm 62. John "birther" Samford:

“its simply a miracle that every President before him was white.”

No, Moho, not a miracle, just a lie. One of many you have fallen for.

http://www.geocities.com/cureworks1/5blkpres.htm

Buy the book. Learning never hurt anyone.

No, the facts are that before the War of Secession, Race was NOT a major issue in America. Blacks were present at all major historical events. They fought alongside Whites in the revoluntary War, The alamo and many other places where men were dying for Freedom. They rode the wagon trains west as freemen and sailed on the Clipper ships to China. Did you know about 10% of slves were white? They didn’t call them slaves. They were called indentured servants. Same deal though.
Read “A Pecular Institution” by Stowe.
The California gold rush had more to do with freeing the slaves then the War of Secession.
The Yankee industrialists that financed the gold rush discovered that blacks would do the same work whites would for less money. Sort of like Mexicans of today. So naturally they wanted as many as they could get for their factories. Less wages means more profits. Something the wealthy land owners in the South were well aware of.
As the Yankees enticed more slaves to escape and go North to become a wage slave in some factory, The Southern Gentry got harsher and harsher toward their slaves.
The War of Secession was fought to see who would profit from the labor pool African-Americans represented.
Neither side really cared about what happened to those African-Americans. Nobody cares today either. Politicians PRETEND to care as part of the vote getting process. Don’t let them lie to you anymore. GOOGLE.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:04 pm 63. Moho:

Delia, I’m still waiting for an explanation of this comment: Using a mulatto mutt as the first supposed ‘black’ man is an embarrassment to black people and white people.

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/10/21/obama-and-the-constitution-he-has-his-doubts/#comment-56

Its in your interest to explain what you meant by this? What exactly is an “embarrassment to black people and white people”. Are you saying that “mulattos” aren’t black, if they so choose to identify or are identified as such by others? Was Frederick Douglass a mulatto or a black man? Booker T. Washington? WEB Dubois? Malcolm X?

You can answer these questions at any time. They will reveal a great deal of imposed ignorance on your part, but at least it will be a growth exercise for you. Or you can ignore them, leaving the predicate of an obvious perspective.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:11 pm 64. Delia:

60. Moho:

“Explain.”

Haven’t you heard, TrollMo? DohBama Barry is not ‘authentically black’ and he’s totally skipped his white trash half and only self identifies as a lame attempt at ‘being’ black when clearly his thin lips, fair skin and straight blonde hair indicate otherwise.

Do you want to see pictures of Barry’s naked mother, trollmo? If Palin’s mother had nekkid pics you can bet it would have been BIG NEWS plastered every freakin’ place.

Why is that?

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:14 pm 65. Pragmatist:

MOHO will now show us all the links to the Obamanations College and school records and writings to PROVE that the LIAR Messiah is just as smart as they all ‘CLAIM!!!!’ he is. Whats that MOHO you CANT because ALL the Obamanations documentation and history is HIDDEN and no one can see them now theres a surprise.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:15 pm 66. biblio44:

16. Marc Malone: Alireza is a foreign Arab.
20. venividivici: “Yes English is my 2nd language.” Is “human being” your 2nd species?
25. Texexpatriate: “She must be a Muslim or regular Democrat”
56. Delia: Using a mulatto mutt as the first supposed ‘black’ man is an embarrassment to black people and white people.

You’ve definitely found your audience and your ilk, Mike.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:17 pm 67. Delia:

66. biblio44

“56. Delia: Using a mulatto mutt as the first supposed ‘black’ man is an embarrassment to black people and white people.”

AND?

Yeah. You got nuthin’, sfb.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:20 pm 68. Delia:

65. Pragmatist,

They are just hidin’ B.O.’s info cuz he’s the messiah and stuff.

ALL HAIL BODY ODOR!

*phew*

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:22 pm 69. Pragmatist:

MOHO the left wing moonbat and self confessed rabidly antisemitic Mohammedan Arab JEW HATER is also a fanatical worshiper of the Obama LIAR Messiah . A coincidence I think not.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:22 pm 70. Moho:

Biblio–the funny part is that they call us trolls. But its obvious that they’re the ones who diverted this to an issue of race the first chance they got. They’re the biggest trolls on this site.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:24 pm 71. Moho:

Delia, Was Frederick Douglass black?

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:25 pm 72. Pragmatist:

Answers MOHO give us answers and links not empty rhetoric. Until you can PROVE the Obamantion is what YOU say he is all your doing is spewing ‘hot air’. Come on dont be a TROLL all your life put up or shut up.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:32 pm 73. Moho:

Pragmatist, you’ve asked no questions.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:33 pm 74. Delia:

72., Moho aborted his own child.

Let’s allow him some ‘grief’ no matter how ‘faux’ that grief is.

Moho, was your girlfriend black?
Is that the ‘Sanger’ reason why you aborted her/him?

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:38 pm 75. Pragmatist:

MOHO as usual you are a LIAR I asked you to give us links or PROOF that Obama is as smart as YOU say he is . Show us his school and College GRADES his Thesis his Law Society writings his Birth Certificate in fact ANYTHING about him thats not his BOOK. So i say once again PUT UP OR SHUT UP. TROLL.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:41 pm 76. Pragmatist:

Just to PROVE what a LIAR you are MOHO here are the QUESTIONS i posted for YOU earlier.

#65 “MOHO will now show us all the links to the Obamanations College and school records and writings to PROVE that the LIAR Messiah is just as smart as they all ‘CLAIM!!!!’ he is. Whats that MOHO you CANT because ALL the Obamanations documentation and history is HIDDEN and no one can see them now theres a surprise.”

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:44 pm 77. 2thman:

There are few people more disappointed in this President than I; however, using the phrase “mulatto mutt” is hurtful and accomplishes nothing. Many of us are of mixed blood; yet we can walk the political fence or jump to either side. Is being a Conservative dependent on having the correct genetic composition?

I am big and mean looking, no one insults me, but my grown son is a gentle soul, what do say to a young man when whites and blacks have called him an albino N***** or a white N*****? If you have the answer, please enlighten me.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:46 pm 78. Moho:

MOHO as usual you are a LIAR I asked you to give us links or PROOF that Obama is as smart as YOU say he is .

I haven’t said that Obama is smart. I’m seriously not interested in the issue, nor do I even actually support Obama on most issues. It doesn’t stop me from despising the dangerous and willful stupidity of people like you and Delia.

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:50 pm 79. Delia:

All trolls and their mindless drivel aside…

The prez and his cronies want to dismantle our country and our constitution and life as we know it. The elites have no qualms about jet-setting around the country for photo-ops whilst our poor starve and our jobless percentage becomes insane and our debt is astronomical.

Are you ready, my beloved country?

Oct 22, 2009 - 9:52 pm 80. Pragmatist:

# 77 TROLL MOHO I will take that as an admission and PROOF that you CANNOT provide any PROOF of the Obamanations College or work records and thus PROVE yourself to be the bigoted , uneducated uninformed hot air filled TROLL that you have shown everyone that you are.

Oct 22, 2009 - 10:02 pm 81. Beth:

Don’t forget that trolls like to rile up the right so that they can trot back home with their little prizes. Please don’t bite, folks. Perhaps people like Alireza really don’t understand that we are not racists, just fed up with the race card.
Don’t know if you’ve heard about this:
Racial heritage of six former presidents is questioned.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:13 am 82. Lilya:

1) The so-called Founders

Basically, he’s implying that they didn’t really found anything…so either they took credit for something somebody else did/was already there.

2) economic freedom & distribution of wealth

Do they look like synonyms to you? Because to me, they don’t.

3) hypocrisy

I’m afraid I don’t understand how economic freedom = hypocrisy, even taking into account the “distribution of wealth” variant.

In conclusion: the POTUS needs a dictionary of the English language.

Also: foreign learner 3 – native speaker 0

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:42 am 83. robotech master:

The simple fact is constitutionalists have been demanding records for obama… from birth to senate race…

The simple fact is obama is either a nazi or a commie… either way the records show as much… and thats why they’ve been completely hidden. This very site have repeatedly condemned anyone who would dare question this president’s history or lack their off. Sometimes the hypocrisy of this site can be impressive when they tell ppl things are facts when they are not and refuse to even have the most basic journalistic principles to check the facts before denigrating those who only seek the truth. Until obama records have been reviewed by a fair and open panel we will never know the true… and since even media groups like this site refuse to do even that basic leg work we are simply forced to wait and wonder…

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:47 am 84. El Gordo:

In Obamas words, economic freedom is based on the forced redistribution of wealth by the government. He could have written that yesterday if he were honest enough.

Doesn´t it give you pause that Obama has not learned anything new in three decades?

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:48 am 85. davod:

“Who here graduated cum laude from Harvard Law? Lectured on constitutional law for 12 years? Anybody? Who here considers themselves an expert on the conshtitushun and why? (Saying you’ve read it ain’t enough. Sorry, saying you’ve read “Rescuing Sprite” ain’t enough either.)”

Studying constitutional law and teaching constitutional law for twelve years has not changed Obama’s views on the constitution.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:39 am 86. drjohn:

What that Obamunist glosses over entirely is the work needed for economic freedom. Political freedom costs others nothing, but Obama’s version of “economic freedom” burdens all who toil.

If wealth is necessarily redistributed, there is no freedom.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:40 am 87. Daniel Aronstein:

Obama is a socialist.

Obama’s views of the US Constitution are dangerous – a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:19 am 88. Donna:

Could somebody please publish a class list and the grades Obama received in those classes during his college years?

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:24 am 89. Now and Then:

49. goy:
“Who here thinks appeal to authority fallacy is sufficient reason to ignore BHO’s marxist adolescence?”

You really need a new song, sonny. I asked a simple question: Who here considers themselves an expert on the constitution? I guess I can cross you off the list.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:28 am 90. BFLAT879:

It’s amazing the Washington Post can dig up a 30 year old college paper on a Republican but can’t even begin to question anything written by Obama. I’m sure we’d all be amazed at what Obama has written in the past.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:32 am 91. Mark:

Obama makes the same mistake that many liberals do. He assumes that the govt is allowed to do anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution. (And then only until some lawyer can invent away to ignore the limitation. “Substantive governmental interst my @ss”

There was no need for the constitution to “grant economic freedom”, because the people already had economic freedom. What they did not do was to grant to govt, the power to limit economic freedom.

Another point. Without economic freedom, political freedom is meaningless.
Are you really free to criticize govt, if doing so means that you lose your job, and everything you own?

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:33 am 92. R Johnson:

I am a US born citizen. I love this country and I am willing to die for it to defend it. But I often wonder how will we ever know if a national election is legitimate.
Acorn and the democrats cannot be trusted. I am so afraid for this country and what the present administration is doing to curtail our freedoms. We all should be willing to sacrifice for our beloved country and preserve the Constitution.A legitimate election will throw out the socialist goons in the Obama administration. The Sixties
radicals in Obamas administration have found the perfect Manchurian Candidate in Obama.
I pray he is a “one term president”.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:46 am 93. Aristocracy Reborn | Track-A-'Crat: The Roll Call of Democratic Delinquency:

[...] are the words of Barry in a thesis, entitled Aristocracy Reborn, that he wrote during his time at Columbia and of which TIME’s Joe Klein was allowed to see [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:47 am 94. Derrick:

Obama….

The constant lying.
The staggering arrogance.
The dangerous narcissism.
The astounding incompetence.

The Obama Buffoon wants to put as much of the private economy under government control as possible to create his nanny state utopia where he is the boy king.

Let’s continue to stand strong against Obama in every way and get Congress out of the hands of the insane Pelosi and Reid in 2010.

Obama is a smug, smirking con man. Nothing more

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:49 am 95. Mark:

87. Now and Then

One doesn’t have to be an “expert” in the constitution to know what it says.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives the govt the power to promote “economic justice”, even if we could all agree on what an ambigous, amorphous, term like that actually meant.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:49 am 96. naturalfake:

Obama disrupting the Constitution?

But, of course! He’s:

PRESIDENT THALIDOMIDE

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:50 am 97. Obama College Thesis: ‘Constitution is Inherently Flawed’ « Mcnorman’s Weblog:

[...] Why the silence of the media? Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote: “… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.” Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Earn University Credit Hours By Canvassing For ObamaLesson For Your College Kids About Obama’s Tax PlanAyers Audio From Same Week He Worked With Obama : Stop The ACLUObama in 2001 Felt Constitution Deeply Flawed   [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:55 am 98. Crush Liberalism:

Just to recap:

What a Republican governor candidate wrote in college garners MSM attention, specifically daily/weekly mentions in the Washington comPost.

What a Democrat president (and even when he was a candidate) wrote in college is irrelevant.

Got it?

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:58 am 99. Jim Rockford:

This snipet from his college thesis illustrates why Obama has not released his college grades, explain how he got into Harvard, or how he made editor of the Harvard Law Review and never wrote a single article. They would make obvious his radicalism, anti-Americanism and lack of intelligence. But the mainstream media gave him a pass, and the ignorant, lazy, do for me crowd did the rest.

But even without the documents, it was obvious from the beginning to any serious person who bothered to pay attention that he is a radical, a socialist and views his country only as a vehicle to further his own interests.

I just hope those who voted for him suffer the most in the debacle that is to come.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:00 am 100. SarahB:

The contemptuous “so-called Founders” crack is what I wish people would pay attention to instead of the lame birth-certificate conspiracy theories. He really was raised with a foreign sensibility, has not internalized the greatness or purpose of America the way most school children do; he did not spend his formative years here, he is in the de facto sense if not de jure, not a natural citizen. No one thought this mattered so long as the technical qualifications were met, but it does matter. Electing this person is the worst error ever committed by people of the United States, he means to destroy this country as it was meant to be; he does not love it, he does not understand it, and he is not worth of it.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:04 am 101. Judy Breck:

It seems to me not enough has yet been studied and made public about Obama’s leftist mother Ann Durham. She was born in 1942 and was two years older than Bill Ayers. I was born in 1936, and know this generation well. Like Ayers, Dunham was “far out.” As the Wikipedia Ann Durham bio records, she attended high school in Mercer Island, Washington from where one of her friends recalls: “We were liberals before we knew what liberals were.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

Durham’s influence on her son’s thinking surely would be a key to his ideas when he was in college. The kid was a child of the hippy generation. I have wondered if Durham knew Ayers, and/or a mutual acquaintance could have been why young Barry moved from Occidental to Columbia. The public story about her is that she was an anthropologist; there is more underneath that almost certainly.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:05 am 102. CatoRenasci:

“Who here graduated cum laude from Harvard Law? Lectured on constitutional law for 12 years? Anybody? Who here considers themselves an expert on the conshtitushun and why? (Saying you’ve read it ain’t enough. Sorry, saying you’ve read “Rescuing Sprite” ain’t enough either.)”

Having been a flagship law review editor at a top 10 law school, having both taken and given seminars in various aspects of Constitutional law and social choice theory, having been involved in appellate practice involving Constitutional issues, and being all-but-dissertation for a PhD in intellectual history specializing in the Enlightenment, I would consider myself somewhere between a journeyman and an expert in the Constitution, depending on the specific question at hand.

Based on my study of the scholarly literature of US Constitutional law, and my own study of the works of the Founders and of the sources they read, ranging from classical authors through Blackstone, I feel confident in stating unequivocally that the view of the Constitution in the snippet of Obama’s paper above is well outside the mainstream of Constitutional thought.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:07 am 103. Cato:

Actually, I think it is an admission by Obama that most of what he does and plans to do is unconstitutional.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:08 am 104. Alexamenos:

“We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name — liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names ‘liberty’ and ‘tyranny’.”

-Lincoln 1864

I guess what the idiot Øbamao means is that we do not have economic liberty because wealth creation does not grow on trees. I guess we do not have intellectual freedom either because the redistribution of test scores are no where enshrined in the constitution.

He is truly such a fool.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:08 am 105. Cybergeezer:

56. Delia:
Using a mulatto mutt as the first supposed ‘black’ man is an embarrassment to black people and white people.

I think you mean to say a total embarrassment to intelligent human beings, globally!

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:10 am 106. OxyCon:

Obama’s “chip on his shoulder” was there in plain sight all that time. “So-called founders” is a display of complete contempt and utter disrespect for our founding fathers. Why is it that Obama has a problem with them? I have a hunch.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:13 am 107. inmypajamas:

Moho – Bill O’Reilly has a degree from Harvard Business School so does that make him your go-to guy for economics? Do you understand what goy was referring to as the fallacy of appealing to authority?

Your questioning of the Constitutional expertise of the commenters is also known as a red herring. No one has to be a Constitutional expert to recognize that the socialist principle of enforced government re-distribution of wealth is one that The Messiah has embraced with conviction since his college days and wants to expand as President. His speeches and what little written work we are allowed to read all point to his discomfort with the free markets and limited government the Constitution was designed to support. The One is no fan of the Constitution and it is obvious and disturbing.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:13 am 108. Cybergeezer:

77. 2thman:

See # 89.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:15 am 109. Cybergeezer:

90. inmypajamas:”…….The One is no fan of the Constitution and it is obvious and disturbing.”

TRUTH

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:18 am 110. Moho:

Perhaps people like Alireza really don’t understand that we are not racists, just fed up with the race card.

Sorry, it looks so much like racism…how should we know the difference, Beth?

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:21 am 111. Moho:

Moho – Bill O’Reilly has a degree from Harvard Business School so does that make him your go-to guy for economics? Do you understand what goy was referring to as the fallacy of appealing to authority?

Hmmm…apart from understanding the “appeal to authority” fallacy–its actually when you appeal to the moral or social authority of an individual, not their expertise in a subject. If I say, MLK thought so and so, rather than simply arguing the issue on its merits, then that’s an “appeal to authority”. I would be trying to bully you by implying that you are not moral simply because of your position, as it is not shared by a pillar of history. Additionally, I didn’t make any statements like the one you’re implying.

Your questioning of the Constitutional expertise of the commenters is also known as a red herring. No one has to be a Constitutional expert to recognize that the socialist principle of enforced government re-distribution of wealth is one that The Messiah has embraced with conviction since his college days and wants to expand as President./i>

Again, you have no understanding of the principles you’re talking about here. In the first place, I haven’t questioned the constitutional expertise of anyone here. If you’re going to follow Ledeen’s stupid critique, however, then you should be ready to provide examples that Obama’s position is indeed “radical”. Its not–as I said, my political science textbook in school, put out by CQ Politics, made a similar observation. There were indentured servants and slaves in the time of the creation of the constitution–they were by default not allowed to own land, they were forced to enrich those who had inherited it through unjust land distribution. Its an embarrassment to our country, frankly, but not as embarrassing as the fact that so many nimrods seem completely unaware of their country’s history.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:30 am 112. Wreckster:

The “So-Called” Founders – Dopey borrowed that from Calypso Louie, BTW.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:33 am 113. Peter Verkooijen:

FYI, the idea capitalism lacks “economic freedom” or “economic democracy” is a marxist cliche. This is a standard hardline marxist-leninist view of the American Constitution.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:33 am 114. Moho:

Beth:Racial heritage of six former presidents is questioned.

Two things funny about this. First, the article itself states quite plainly that the idea isn’t taken seriously by scholars. Second, this is exactly what Delia was complaining about–people celebrating non-authentic “black” Presidents. As Delia seems to be the authority of what constitutes authentic blackness, you should have it out with her.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:48 am 115. | Defend-America.com |:

[...] Faster, Please! » Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts. [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:50 am 116. Troy Riser:

John “birther” Samford, your use of the term ‘War of Secession’ grates on the nerves, more revealing of what you are than what it was. It is as inaccurate (and maliciously dishonest) as ‘War of Northern Aggression’. As a descendant of a Union infantryman in the 19th Indiana, I prefer the designation ‘The War In Which Grant Beat The Daylights Out Of Lee’? No?

When in the Service, I knew many Southern boys whose great-grandfathers and great-uncles fought my great-grandfather and great-uncles. We respected each others’ family histories and traditions. None of them ever tried to twist history to rationalize the South’s defeat. Truth is Lincoln out-thought and out-fought them all: Davis, Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Bragg.

Lincoln wasn’t shy about enunciating the principles motivating his decision to fight it out to the end. Read the transcripts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Read the transcript of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech. Read everything he ever wrote or said regarding war aims and purposes. Nothing is hidden. Everything is plain.

And you know what you can do with that damned Confederate battle flag hanging on your wall.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:52 am 117. Highlar:

I must say, when I first started reading the comments on the article here, I was right with them. Towards the end where I stopped reading to write this note (comment 87), they have degenerated into racial slurs. 2thman is absolutely correct: calling someone a “mulatto” in the way you did was meant to be hurtful and racial. That is just wrong. Argue with Moho’s points in an adult fashion, please. Name calling and racial slurs are just unacceptable, from either the right or the left. We on the right are no more racists than those on the left. They are on BOTH sides of the fence, and its not right to go there unless you can see someone actually saying something racist. Please, my fellow conservatives and Republicans, don’t do that here. This article has NOTHING to do with race. It DOES have to do with how President Obama may see the Constitution he has sworn to protect and defend. From things he has said in current times, such as during the campaign last year, I do not believe that he thinks any differently than when he wrote this thesis. I do not feel he truly thinks the Constitution, as written, is appropriate. And I completely disagree with him on this and MANY other topics. But I am not going to toss racial slurs at him. That’s just wrong. Using logic and common sense is a much more effective argument than insults and innuendo.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:01 am 118. jjs:

Alireza: If Obama is such a great man, why doesn’t he prove it and share his writings? Great and honorable men don’t hide things, they show the world who they are. That in turn attracts other good healthy people to you and pushes the bad people away. Sick people with bad intentions hid and deceive. This is common knowledge that one learns from healthy parents and healthy backgrounds. Obama had none of this and he is fooling you into believing he is something he is not. He is in the process of being found out because the truth will allows come out sooner or later. You can not hide who you truly are forever. My advice to you Alireza is to focus on who you are and improve your self image before you attract more people likes Obama into your life. Sooner or later you will be burned by making bad people choices….just like the whole nation in being burned now. Good luck with your journey and God Bless.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:06 am 119. Nick:

Beck has aired the audio of Obama’s comment numerous times over the past few weeks. Scary.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:08 am 120. Michael:

“they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Character is judged by ones words and ones action. That is what we abhor about President Obama. He despises the very foundation of this country. He rushes to change what made America, with all it’s faults, a beacon to the world of how wonderful things could be.

Words and actions. The words and actions he is using to try and silence any position other than his own. Words and actions that seek to take from one group of people and give to another according to HIS personal arbitrary agenda. Words that say one thing and actions that do another.

It’s his political character we oppose.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:10 am 121. NCBob:

I don’t believe we’ll ever see the whole thesis! Why? Because, I believe, Obama plagiarized most of it (what year was it revealed that Marty King plagiarized large parts of his doctoral dissertation?). There are software programs that allow teachers to check existing text against what has been written before. That didn’t exist when Obama was at Columbia.
Additionally, even if the plagiarism was obvious to Obama’s instructor, what left-wing Columbia professor on a tenure track would dare blow the whistle on a clean, articulate black student, studying under a scholarship from an Ayers, Saudi or international communist foundation?

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:10 am 122. Potter:

Every master’s and Ph.D thesis is required to be filed in the university’s library. I assume this also applies to J.D. theses.

Has Obama somehow blocked access to that document? If so, how can that happen?

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:12 am 123. VanillaMan:

I am a conservative, but the same age as the President. So, I remember this era. What I seem to feel is that Obama didn’t accept Reagan and didn’t accept the historic change his administration had on political thought. Obama is still stuck in 1970’s America and has been either playing beach bum in one of the US’s richest beach playgrounds, or playing racial organizer in desolate Chicago slums. So he has missed an important part of American history.

When did he write this?

Back in the Carter years, it had become fashionable to consider rewriting the Constitution. Carter’s failures were explained by the leftists professors as failures within the Constitution and failures within the design of the Presidency. So, it had become fashionable during that era, until Reagan became successful, to have these kinds of discussions.

What Obama may have been doing was nothing more than an exercise in political thought during a period when this political thought was being debated within college classes.

Reagan changed a lot of young college minds. His success revitalized the Institution of the Presidency. If Obama was writing this kind of crap after Reagan’s successful terms in office – that’s another story. But, if he was in college before this era of US renewal – his writings need to be taken into historic context.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:12 am 124. David W. Lincoln:

There is also this: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=33aaf96f-a789-4431-b05d-477ddee133b2

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:14 am 125. Moho:

what year was it revealed that Marty King plagiarized large parts of his doctoral dissertation?

Yes, what year was that? Because if you don’t know, and can’t prove it, then its bs.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:18 am 126. Bear:

Its interesting to watch the level of civility decline in these postings. There seems to be a trend based on who visits.

JACO

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:21 am 127. macko:

the O has made many statements against the constitution, this is neither the first nor the last. you need to watch his actions.

denouncing zelaya’s ouster from Honduras wnen he tried to change the constitution to give himself more power.

not denouncing the deadly crackdown on iranian protesters who were protesting the rigging of an already rigged election.

You can say he wrote that during his youth but his statements and actions since then aren’t much different.

Delia,
Tell me more about the kill whitey stuff.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:24 am 128. ricky:

Obama isn’t a real President.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:43 am 129. Ray:

All these liberal idiots. Voted for a reptile candidate just because his dark skin. Now look at what you really got – a half white hater of everything American. He should instead be thankful that his black father was able to visit this county and impregnate the white mother. But it seems his dark side prevails. His foreign side hate America just like all the foreingers do.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:51 am 130. R.U. WITHMEE:

My father told me when I was young,that people would not have a clue into your intelligence just by looking at you.Once you opened your mouth people would start to understand your level,and who you were.
The more our president speaks and the more we read his writings,the more we know who he is.IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK,QUACKS LIKE A DUCK,SWIMS LIKE A DUCK,FLIES LIKE A DUCK,YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YOUR OWN OPINION.Mine is that he is a socialist-communist!

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:54 am 131. blotto:

moho: “There were indentured servants and slaves in the time of the creation of the constitution–they were by default not allowed to own land, they were forced to enrich those who had inherited it through unjust land distribution. Its an embarrassment to our country, frankly, but not as embarrassing as the fact that so many nimrods seem completely unaware of their country’s history.”

Yo, moho, give it a rest. Every day you attempt to take the discussion into slavery, racism and that the US is an evil nation due to its past. Get over it.

I am tired of reading your drivel. If you cannot stay on topic which seems to be your MO and cannot write intellecually about a topic DON’T WRITE. Go on to the next paper. Geez, move to Cuba; I hear they treat blacks real good down there.

As to your quote above: I say good for the US. We are the greatest nation that ever graced this planet. The slavery issue was just a tiny part of our beginning. I am not embarrassed by slavery; it was what it was and most Americans have come to terms with it.

Only you, because you cannot function in polite society, have yet to get over it; it is your raison d’etre for being a person. Without slavery you would be a nothing; you would have nothing to post and therefore have nothing to be proud of–this is your only accomplishment in life. And it is getting tedious.

If you hate America so much leave and go to Africa or Cuba. Funny, many, many black Africans immigrate to America and they much more than you have been touched by slavery, oppression and worse yet see Ameica for what she is-THE SHINING CITY ON THE HILL.

You moron you don’t know how good you got it and the only reason you post here is because you think Obamamama gives you the privelige to say whatever it is you have to say. Like we care what you have to say. You are amusing that’s all.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:05 am 132. MrB:

His speeches and what little written work we are allowed to read all point to his discomfort with the free markets and limited government the Constitution was designed to support.

What part of the Constitution was “designed to support” free markets? Cite the exact language in the Constitution that specifically enshrines the ideals of free market capitalism in our law.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:07 am 133. Orion:

The debate of property vs. civil rights goes back to the Declaration of Independence. Some members of the committee wanted to have it read, “Life, Liberty, and the Protection of Property” but Jefferson would have none of that. He deemed the right to follow your dream, to believe as you wish and seek your own goals in life as fundamental to human existance.

In this brief excerpt Obama demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the role of government in America. He believes government was created to right wrongs, to uplift the poor, to “make equal” people of differing social and financial classes. Worthy goals, but not what the Constitution is all about. The Constitution is a straitjacket we’ve wrapped around our Federal government to keep it from reiging unchecked over us. It was written to PREVENT more than PROMOTE.

Even in the tiny population of the 13 original States the Founding Fathers (so-called or not) saw there were many interests and many voices clammoring for power and prestige in the new country. To prevent any one of those from drowning out the others they developed a system of checks and balances against unfettered power; 3 branches of government, each with its own powers and spheres of influence and the ability to rein in any of the other two if these began to seek too much power over the public.

The notion of using the Constitution to seek “social justics” probably would have been anathema to the Founders. If you said it empowered Congress to seek redistribution of wealth they’d probably have burned you at the stake. Obama’s interpretation of the role of government was one of those that they definitely believed should be reined in and checked.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:08 am 134. Wendy:

The disribution of wealth….so let me get this straight…it is not ok for one family to work hard and prosper if another family doesnt work as hard and doesnt make as much and has a rougher time and what we are supposed to do is the “Robin Hood” Principal…take from the family that worked hard and prospered and give to the other family?

You can flower it up and try to make it sound different all you want, but bottom line, that is the basis of the Socialism Doctrine. The Entire Community works for one goal and everyone is given economic equality regardless of what they have done to contribute.

You know what….if everyone did work equally as hard towards a common goal, I would not have just heartburn over this whole distribution of wealth statement. The problem is, they DONT. I am not going to get up and work my tail off every day to make ends meet and put my children eventually through college, all the while doing without the extras to have someone come along and say that, well thats all great, but you need to give some of what you have earned to the Jones family down the street because they arent doing as well as you. WRONG Answer!

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:09 am 135. anon:

They make you write all kinds of things in college. I hate Obama, but cut him a little slack on this one, his Marxist professor probably brainwashed him into thinking freedom is slavery, literally.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:12 am 136. goy:

@87. Now and Then: – You really need a new song…

LOL!!! Just adding the refrain to your monotonous tune, fake vet.

I’m sure you’re tired of hearing it. I don’t blame you. The shoe fits you too well.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:23 am 137. Vicki:

Good Article. This should be on the news in every paper and tv news.

The writer should be getting on Fox to report this.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:26 am 138. Linda:

HMMM..I went to JIP website and interestingly enough, the article is listed as satire. So with that notation being made, along with absolutely no proof/link for the reader to fact check for themselves, I conclude this as just another attempt by JIP to stir up the masses with hypotheticals.

Good try, but not taking the bait.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:36 am 139. Enemy of the Statist:

Has there been any independent confirmation of this quote? Has Joe Klein commented? Unless there is some kind of confirmation, it’s just another internet rumor.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:38 am 140. Baracko Bandido:

Consteetooshon? We don need no steenkin consteetooshon!

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:49 am 141. Kathryn:

We sheep have elected the wolf as our protector.
————————–
UNBELIEVABLE OBAMA GAFFES, Mistakes, Lies, and Confusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-AKcH3eC8

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:51 am 142. Taylor:

That thesis excerpt is more evidence supporting the theory that there’s a reason why Obama’s academic records remain a state secret: if those records were made public, he’d be exposed for what he — and his wife — are: mediocre intellects who had no business being in the Ivy League institutions they got into.

American colleges and universities worship at the altar of Diversity. Their preferred expression of devotion is a student body that is “representative of society.” Unfortunately, the pool of black candidates who can qualify on their academic merits for admission into elite institutions like Columbia, Princeton and Harvard is too shallow to meet that goal. So those institutions find ways to go around that obstacle — separate and unequal admission standards that punish Asians in particular and whites to a lesser degree, while rewarding other minorities in general and blacks in particular.

There is a reason why you will never know, for example, what Obama’s SAT and LSAT scores were. It’s as safe bet that those scores wouldn’t have been good enough to get to Columbia or Harvard Law absent the injection of some “other” criterion.

But the problem doesn’t stop at admissions. Affirmative Action has led to another phenomenon that is acutely felt at elite institutions: grade inflation. For once people who can’t qualify on academic merit get in over their heads when surrounded by and competing with those who can, what’s to prevent them from being flunked out? The answer is to make it almost impossible for anyone to receive a bad grade.

The Obamas no doubt learned early on in their collegiate experience that their value as racial statistics to Ivy League skin-color bean-counters meant that they could game the system: as long as they didn’t do anything super-stupid, they could skate all the way to graduation even if they routinely and knowingly turned in substandard academic performances.

There is a reason why you will never see Obama’s undergrad or law school transcripts.

This is why Obama was able to so much time in dalliances with Marxism while he was in college — it wasn’t like he had to study or anything, or to turn in worthwhile exam performances to know that his sheepskin was already in the bag.

The excerpt in question above is perfectly in keeping with the attitude of someone in possession of such knowledge: it is arrogantly ignorant of the Constitution, contemptuous of its founders and the system of government and free market economics that rests on the document they wrote, and reeks of a mind pickled in Marxian notions like “social justice.”

Slipshod work from a mediocre intellect who was phoning it in at school in the same way he’d regularly vote “present” later on, and who hasn’t shown that age and experience have made him any wiser than he was on the day he turned in that paper. No surprise.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:51 am 143. Blindgoose:

Jim Rockford you are right on the money. I scratch my head thinking wtf when the left claim how smart Obama is. Well if he’s so smart, show us the damn transcripts.

Hope we have a plan. People in Honduras had a plan. /salute to them

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:52 am 144. Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts « Ramparts 360:

[...] [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:54 am 145. GunnyG:

WOW! Where is the Lapdog Media on this? Oh yeah, they’re busy sniffing Barack Hussein Obama’s hindquarters.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:55 am 146. GlennW:

RE: #1 It’s too bad you liberals don’t hold your politicians to the same standards as you do unelected citizens. If you hate Rush, turn off the radio and get a life. Meanwhile the liberal politicians are throwing taxpayer money in the air like it was confetti.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:56 am 147. Timothy Wise:

But the Washington Post sure got itself into a dither over the graduate thesis of GOP candidate Bob McDonell. What hypocrites the MSM?

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:58 am 148. Bruc Fer:

Obama shows himself to be the very small, angry, chip on his shoulder boy that he really is.

Our president hates the foundations of America, hates capitalism, hates the wealthy and assumes it is all made by crook unless you work for government.

The people wanted the second term of Jimmuh Carter and they got it.

Obama when asked about reparations for slaves stated that healthcare reform would disproportionately benefit people of color and therefore would be a form of reparations.

How in god’s name did this socialist get elected…. for one thing the republicans decided one more time to run an old man who got the nomination simply because of time, service, and being a war hero. Didn’t work for Dole.

If the dems lose the Virginia governor’s race next month and come in very close in the New Jersey governor’s race which should be a cakewalk for any democrat it will be the first signal to democrats that their agenda of overreach will be repudiated in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans will not regain either house but enough seats will be lost that Obama the man-child will be b-slapped and repudiated accordingly.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:59 am 149. goy:

@94. Moho – … the “appeal to authority” fallacy–its actually when you appeal to the moral or social authority of an individual, not their expertise in a subject.

LOL!! “moral or social authority”??? “not their expertise”???? Really?? That’s your final answer?

This explains a lot, actually, about your lack of credibility, Mo. The moral authority fallacy is very much associated with inappropriate emphasis on expertise in a subject. Certainly, one may have expertise regarding morality and sociology, but those two areas – the realm of “fairness” – appear to be the limit of your addled concerns (undoubtedly something to do with your moral adolescence).

“This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. … The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. … There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question. … &c.”

“In an appeal to authority, something is claimed to be true based on the expertise of an authority rather than objective facts.”

“Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood …”

And we can’t be truly “fair” without a quote from YOUR preferred source for legal “analysis”:

“The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.”

I have more when you’re done parsing and deconstructing those, which I imagine must get tiresome… except of course in cases like yours and David S’, where it’s the only thing that gives your lives any meaning.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:02 am 150. Elizajane:

Without further context, this quotation is pretty innocuous. It is, contrary to what some of you are saying, coherent and reasonably well-written. It doesn’t say anything wild and radical. The Constitution does not talk about the distribution of wealth: right, that is not its purpose. The college-student Obama is not discussing the REdistribution of wealth, or complaining about its absence in the Constitution; and the “communistic” issue you are all complaining about is wealth’s REdistribution, not its distribution.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:04 am 151. Obama’s Agenda Since College Thesis: Fundamentally Transforming The United States « American Political News:

[...] PJM: [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:20 am 152. Steve:

Obama’s position here is wrong on so many levels but how about just this:

The Constitution is premised that WE THE PEOPLE retain our natural liberties and provide government with specific powers and restrictions. It does not ‘give’ anything that we don’t already have. “Rights” are NOT what the Constitution provides, but explicit instructions on what it can and cannot do. Read the ninth and tenth amendment to verify this.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:22 am 153. CJ:

If people bothered to read Obama’s background…his mother, father, step father, etc. They would know that Obama’s mother was a Communist. His father was a pathetic womanizer that left him before he was 5 and his step father was a retard.

it is well know that 9 times out of 10, whatever your mother is, religious, atheist, educated, not educated, etc is what you will be.

The seeds of Obama’s Marxism were laid while he was a young babe and these were further fomented through high school, undergraduate school and grad school.

Obama IS a Communist. I am unsure why Liberals love to deny this since according to them, Communism is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:28 am 154. CK MacLeod:

I have yet to see any link to the supposed Joe Klein piece or other confirmation of the Jumping in Pools blogger’s claims. I’m open-minded, but totally unpersuaded at this time, especially since there has been credible reporting that Obama’s senior thesis was on an entirely different subject.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:29 am 155. Paul:

I VOTED FOR OBAMA. AFTER 9 MONTHS OF SEEING WHAT I’VE DONE …

I GUESS THAT MY VOTE WAS REALLY AN ABOMINATION TO THE GREAT HISTORY OF MY AMERICAN PEOPLE.

I KNOW SORRY IS NOT ENOUGH.

I’VE BEEN STARTING ON THE PRINCIPLES OF CONSERVATIVISM NOW USING THE OLD FASHIONED BOOKS OF EDMUND BURKE, FRIEDMAN, REAGAN AND OTHER GREAT CONSERVATIVE THINKERS.

HALFWAY THROUGH MY READING … I’VE DISCOVERED THE SOLUTION TO OUR CURRENT MESS:

1. NOT GOVERNMENT.
2. BUT I, ME, YO, etc. etc.: A LIBERTARIAN,CONSERVATIVE, HARDWORKING ME.

I FULLY UNDERSTAND PALIN, RUSH AND BECK NOW. WHY ONLY NOW? WHY? DID YOUR LEADERS, THE TWO BUSHES, SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE VIRTUES OF CONSERVATISM?

BUT I PRAY THAT IT’S NOT YET TOO LATE. I LIVE IN OHIO. I WILL TAKE PART FOR THE CONSERVATIVES’ VICTORIES BOTH IN 2010 AND 2012.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:35 am 156. Horatius:

“I see poverty in every place I walk. In Los Angeles and New York, the poor reach to me with bleary eyes and all I can do is sigh.”

This is not an academic comment and has no place in a scholarly exercise. I do not blame the undergraduate; I do blame the professor.

Mr. Obama–if you think you could do better starting from scratch, go for it. I don’t think you can, but I do think you might have that chance to “reset” things to scratch, so maybe we will find out.

I’m sorry that heaven on Earth has not been made material in our time for your instant gratification, but it’s a journey, an American journey of incredible achievements; the greatest story (greatest mortal story, for my Christian friends) in the history of man; a story of the bringing of the greatest levels of personal dignity, liberty, freedom, and equality (economic too, pal) in the history of man; and a journey that I do not think–based upon what I see–that you and your ilk could even *begin* to match in accomplishments to date, much less appreciably bring forward. I say this harshly because I cannot stand people who did not build a thing but can only say how it should have been built without acknowledging what *was* built–and the goodness contained within.

At this rate, sir, centuries hence, as the story of the American Republic is told with pride and fond recollection in the eye from star to star, planet to planet, you will be but a footnote of a disordered time; when those who could not build proved all too well they could tear down. Goodness did not begin with your appearance upon the scene, and it will somehow outlast you as well. The story of America is the story of man overcoming his baser limitations and rising to his greatest aspirations–not immediately, not overnight, not without injustice, not without conflict, but nevertheless an inexorable forward progress over time that demands a tad bit of recognition every so often if that progress is to be retained, much less continued; and if the existence of this American Republic to date is for you nothing less than a story of repugnancy until your divine appearance, then that, sir, is strictly your own personal problem, for I could care less.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:37 am 157. Amy:

Anybody come up with a link to Klein’s piece in Time? I couldn’t find anything at Time’s website.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:37 am 158. Rip Morgan:

This is the latest example of why we are not able to read about B. Hussein Obama’s past. Bill Ayers, always working to takeover of the “Establishment”, found the “Magic Negro”. The almost perfect specimen, Barry Sorto. But, by the grace of God, he did not get the total race baiting card. Just worked out that Barry is WHITE. Consider this; Which race is Barry? Black? White? Which person, news association, governmental official or divine personality will decide this; To what degree of mixed race does Barry’s DNA contain? Also are the race whiners who are BLACK, racist to Barry’s WHITE?
Are my objections of Barry’s policies RACIST to his BLACKNESS or his WHITENESS? Confusion is their best weapon and destruction is there goal.
Chaplain Rip Morgan ~ Third Garden Ministry

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:42 am 159. FEDUP:

IS THIS WHAT YOU VOTED FOR?????

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:43 am 160. CJ:

Under President Bush, 5 new Czar positions were created in a matter of 8 years.

Under President Obama, 17 new Czar positions have been created in a matter of 9 months.

Today, President Obama’s administration has claimed that Congress does not have the power to interview and investigate his Czars because of Executive Privilage and Congress would be stepping on the Powers of the Executive Branch.

Hmmm…Left wingers, I thought your President was all about transparency?

the fact is that President Obama and Left wingers are doing what they claim Bush and the Right did the last 8 years.

it is the Left that is desperate to silence Obama’s critics. I have to laugh at Obama’s inability to take some criticism from an organization that the Left considers illegitimate, Foxnews. If it is so illegitimate, why is Obama going after it? why?

His attack on Foxnews reminds me of my home country’s dictator, Hugo Chavez, going after any news organization that dared criticize him.

Liberals must love it that while Obama’s approval ratings have been plummeting, Foxnews ratings have been sky rocketing!!! hahahahaha!!!!! I love it how this irks the Left!

But keep in coming Left wingers, Obama is showing to everyone who Liberals truly are. Individuals who claim to love Freedom of Speech and the Press….of course as long as these agree with Liberal speech, idealogy and they push a Liberal agenda.

If President Bush would have done to MSNBC, New York Times, etc what Obama is doing to Foxnews, Liberals would have been the first ones screaming foul. They would have screamed how Bush is a criminal who is stifling Freedom of Speech and Press. Today, since it is Obama doing it, the lemmings on the Left applaud and cheer as mindless Obamabots. But Obama has set a precedent that Liberals will hate when a Republican is President.

I also remember when Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow and the rest of the Liberal talking heads went crazy, nuts and blew up on television when Bush invited Rush Limbaugh, and other Conservative talking heads to the media. They said that it was unprecedent, not Presidential, they attacked it from every angle and claimed that no Liberal President would ever do that. Hmmmmm…..funny, just this week Obama invited Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and a bunch of other left wing opinion heads to the White House and they ALL attended!!!

Yes ladies and gentlemen, those same Liberals that attacked Bush for doing it, accepted and attended Obama’s White House. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Of course, I await the irrational defense from the Left.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:43 am 161. bubbagyro:

For Paul:
Fringes of racism? That would describe B. Hussein Obama more accurately, no? (if confused, please revisit his Cambridge debacle where he implied strongly that all white cops were incompetent bigots)
PS. it is “man’s opinion” not “mans opinion”. (But they don’t teach grammar in high school well anymore)

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:44 am 162. Sunny Black:

N.B.: the jumpingpools blog which is the primary source for these quotes, tags that particular article as “satire”.

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:52 am 163. Jimi:

There is a reason why this has not been released to the public. Barry Soetoro has spent over 1.4 MILLION dollars blocking all Columbia records including his admission records where it’s suspected he was enrolled as a foreign student. Add to that his grade school records, passport and selective service records, Harvard law school records, the original long form birth certificate with the hospital and delivery doctor. His parents divorce records and his possible adoption by Soetoro are also missing. We know where all modern presidents were born, which hospital and the house they lived in. We know nothing about Barry. Then the MSM won’t even bother to ask. He is the new “International Man of Mystery”, move over Austin Powers!

Someone does not spend 1.4 million dollars hiding his past unless he has something to hide. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

Soon we may have the answers as court cases are working through the system. In january the discovery may begin as then we will finally know the past on Barry.

I suspect he will be found to be an usurper and then all hell will break loose as the blacks will riot if he is removed. No wonder gun and ammo sales are through the roof.
Lock and load!

Oct 23, 2009 - 10:54 am 164. hoipolloi:

Would like to see the actual document, or at least some proof that these quotes truly came from the document it is attributed to.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:02 am 165. borderraven:

Barack H. Obama II, is not a natural born US citizen! The US Constitution requires POTUS to be NBC. Barack H. Obama II, might be a USA citizen, if it were confirmed he was born on USA soil, but his father was not a born or naturalized US citizen. The 14th Amendment, applies to citizenship, but never gets into NBC. The 14th Amendment also says the laws are to be applied equally, yet somehow we are being asked to apply the laws unlawfully to favor Barack H. Obama II.

But, this case gets confusing with:
1. Not having convincing proof of a birth location. Instead we have multiple unverified documents pointing to the existence of competing source records. It is the source records which need to be seen, not some propaganda piece displayed on the Internet sites of FighttheSmears or FactCheck.
2. We need to consider the laws applied to 1961, as they defined how a person acquired US citizenship or US natural born citizenship, how a person acquired foreign citizenship, or even dual-citizenship. Remember we must be fair to all now, in the past, and in the future of the USA, that we apply the laws equally and faithfully, in accordance with the US Constitution, the amendments, and Supreme Court decisions. This is no easy task, and it is made difficult by not seeing the Hawaii birth record. No, I don’t believe that propaganda crap image on FactCheck.

If, big IF, Barack H. Obama II, was “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” he is simply a US citizen. But, it takes two persons to make a baby, and Stanley And Dunham was married at the time to the presumed biological father, a Kenyan named Barack H. Obama, a British subject. That’s only one deal breaker, and there could be more, confirming Barack H. Obama II, never at any time qualified to enter the campaign for POTUS. That he solicited and accepted campaign funding makes him guilty of a felony.

There is a whole lot more, but you know enough to ask for removal of Barack H. Obama II.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:16 am 166. scott hedrick:

What do you expect from our first president that subverts the election process. Refuses to submit proof of his citizenship, a basic qualification for the office. His pastor is/was more concerned with blastamy than scripture. He disowns his own family to protect his past. He has not ran a business or made tough decisions that allow profit. Oh yea there should be no profit only what HE will allow you to have.

The only transparency in this joker are the holes he believe were left out of the constitution by “the so called founders”. The founders, men whose vision created the world as we know it today. Allowing the longest democracy in history. They created checks and balances to protect the citizens and prevent the historic travesty we are witnessing. The puppet president will destroy the sacrifice of many, the work of all and the hopes of our children on arrogant blind decision one at a time. The 52% (probably only 48% less voter fraud from Acorn, SEIU and the like)that voted for hot air and race baiting wanted change and they will get change. Only at the end of this banana republic fiasco will be a much weaker nation and a much more dangerous world.

It would have made a great comedy but for the fact I have a child.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:19 am 167. Squirrel:

This (I wish I could say dribble) stuff that I have just been reading is the same disturbing stuff that has been bothering me for quite some time. Forget about Obama for a minute. The fact that we have so many people in this country who are so filled with hatred toward one party (it doesn’t matter which) is extremely disturbing to me. I am more afraid of what is going to happen to our President than what our President is going to or not going to do. Everyone has good and bad ideas. NO ONE is all bad.

I am neither Republican, Democrat nor Independent. I choose to be apolitical. I vote for who I like best. Sometimes it is a choice between 2 evils.

We all must remember that God never wanted a King for Isreal (or anyother nation) much less a President. God’s design was that He would be King. “Democracy” is not Biblical. I realize we are not truly a Christian nation, but maybe if we tried to go back to the way God designed things we would all be better off.

Reguarding FOX News… Fox is about the most slanted news station there is. However, all the news channels are slanted to some extent.

Please stop judging. If you have no sin, cast the first stone.

Praying for every one of you to come to a true relationship with Christ. Any of you on here who claim to be Christian, please check you attitude at the door. I do every day.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:19 am 168. Real Deal:

Anyone see the irony in the trolls blasting Bush’s publicly availiable academic record yet at the same time lauding B.O.’s (yeah he stinks) supposed genius when he spends almost a million dollars to have his records sealed?

Now I’m not saying the man is totally stupid, he wouldn’t be where he is now if he were, but where he currently needs ability he is sorely lacking. He’s kind of like a dog that chases cars, he finally caught one and doesn’t know what to do with it. That or he’s get some very good people pulling his strings, and with Soros backing him that’s plausible too.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:25 am 169. Obama’s Columbia Thesis: He hates the Framers and their handiwork, the Constitution, too. - ColdWarrior’s blog - RedState:

[...] http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/10/21/obama-and-the-constitution-he-has-his-doubts/ [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:28 am 170. ellipse:

There is no known source for this paper other than “Jumping in Pools” blog. Most probably a hoax.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:28 am 171. Moho:

Goy, you’ve selectively quoted from your sources. This is the paragraph that comes right after the one you’ve quoted there. It begins with the word “However”, you should look that up. Its called a qualifying statement, and suggests that it modifies the preceeding statement [I'm laughing at the stupidity involved in misquoting a tract on "appeals to authority" when you've actually linked to the original source. Did you think that no one would look, you idiot?]

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

An example:

[I]t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.

There is nothing fallacious in citing an authority on a subject, if one is relying on the work of that individual, or if one is countering an argument. One could obviously refer to the work of Bill O’Reillym, economist, if there was any. In fact, this is a necessary component ot critical thinking. You’ve completely misunderstood this concept, not surprisingly.

Again, from my favorite source:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

This is exactly as I implied with the example of MLK. It took me all of thirty seconds to destroy your point.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:36 am 172. Michael Ledeen:

Could be. We’re pulling my post for the time being, awaiting a reply from “Jumping”. If it’s wrong, he should apologize, and obviously I would regret being a party to it.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:38 am 173. Obama Claims Constitution Inherently Flawed In Columbia College Thesis « Quipster:

[...] Why the silence of the media? Joe Klein–who wrote about it for Time–was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote: “… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.” [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:42 am 174. XrayEye:

Poor alireza. I feel a gnashing of teeth going on.He/Her beloved free pass to the White House is failing beyond all expectations and just as a child can not be accountable for a truely disasterous and america hating policy.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:44 am 175. Ran:

Oh cr@p! So the Pools posted a satire by Lancaster? Really? I know one thing for sure: The 2001 Chicago NPR interview was pure satire. Obama hadn’t intended it, of course, but as a lecture on constitutional interpretation, it was totally specious and only funny in the sense of the macabre. Trick or Treat!

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:45 am 176. Moho:

Blotto if you can’t see how the existence of slavery and indentured servitude [which was slavery for white people, FYI] is relevant to a question about the issue of hypocrisy surrounding the constitution, then you’re hardly worthy of discussing anything with.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:47 am 177. Right Blogs, Rush Duped By Obama Thesis Hoax | Bucks Right:

[...] by Steven in National 0 Comments Several conservative blogs including American Thinker and Pajamas Media were duped by hoax site Jumping In Pools into reporting that Time Magazine reporter Joe Klein had [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:53 am 178. SuzanneL:

Joe Klein has just denied ever seeing any part of Obama’s thesis. His blog has been scrubbed.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/23/nonsense-2/

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:58 am 179. roux:

Joe Klein “A report is circulating among the wingnuts that I had a peek at Barack Obama’s senior thesis. It is completely false. I’ve never seen Obama’s thesis. I have no idea where this report comes from–but I can assure you that it’s complete nonsense.”

http://townhall.com/blog/g/630c400c-259a-4aa4-9b7c-5d129ae46186

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:19 pm 180. Boomer:

America has enjoyed 200 plus years of unparallel success in the world. It is time for the experiment to end and America to step down as the world’s leader. It is time for America to be destroyed and I think Obama and the current congessional leaders are the people to get it done.

You’re probably right now wondering whether I’m a left wing progressive or a right wing fanatic and the fact you’re not sure should scare you to death. After all death is inevitable for everything in this world.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:21 pm 181. theod:

Journalist Klein says that it is COMPLETE & TOTAL FABRICATION that he has seen a paper written by Student Obama. Seems like Mr. Ledeen has been punked or is fabricating a story by his own self. Which is it Mr. Ledeen?

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:25 pm 182. NJmarcus:

Ooooops!
Are we feeling a little stupid right about now??

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:25 pm 183. KevinNYC:

Michael Ledeen was taken and needs to apologize. He mistook a satire post something that was true. The important thing is not that he missed that satire tag, attached to the post (buried), it’s he didn’t do any work to discover if what this blog post was saying was actually true. He never looked at the primary source, because there was no primary source. Joe Klein has put up a post saying this is all nonsense. The truth is Klein has never seen Obama’s thesis. Y’all jumped to your premade conclusions and do not come off looking better for it. Ledeen to wash the egg of his face and next time he should do his homework before adding to the echo chamber

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/23/nonsense-2/

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:25 pm 184. Morningside Heights:

That essay would be considered fairly conservative and pro-America by Columbia U. standards. “so-called freedom” and “supposedly a cornerstone” are mild, believe it or not. I went to school up there in the late 80 and early 90s. Everything you see on the left in American politics right now was being planted in the minds of callow ivy league youths way back then. I remember vividly being taught that Reagan was, in addition to being the worst president ever, the destroyer of all that was good in America (Carter presumably). I’m not sure if you have any idea what undergrads in America’s colleges have been taught these past 30+ years. We’re seeing the Gramscian high-tide but its been decades in the making.

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:49 pm 185. psychedelikrelik:

Suckers! You are all a bunch of suckers! Don’t you EVER check your sources? LMAO!

Oct 23, 2009 - 12:54 pm 186. satire:

by Matthew Avitabile at 2:12 PM Email this post

Tags: Barack Obama, capitalism, college, Columbia University, Constitution, President Obama,

SATIRE,

thesis, wealth distribution
Bookmark and Share

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:03 pm 187. Kevin:

The quality of paper (even with respect to grammatical errors let alone organization) suggests that it is not a paper written by an Ivy League student, but a fabrication similar to the fake birth certificate the birthers produced sometime back. The rightwing nuts are disparately trying to slander Obama somehow, but are revealing only their stupidity in that process.

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:04 pm 188. Al Swearengen:

Maybe if you guys didn’t immediately jump in with two feet on every negative thing you “hear” about Obama, you wouldn’t look so bad.

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:05 pm 189. Obama’s College Thesis From Columbia Surfaces « Nice Deb:

[...] [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:27 pm 190. Johnny Simpson:

What a joke! Du-h-h! What was it the Founding Fathers revolted against King George and fought a revolutionary war over again? Oh yeah, TAXES!

The Constitution According to Obama: As convenient as you want it to be!

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:33 pm 191. John Banner:

Obama seems like a decent person, and he may be. But what about his promises:
– bills on web for 5 days before vote.
– No money from lobbyists.
– He would win the war in Afghanistan, the war Bush screwed up.
– No new taxes.

He is a Marxist/fascist/socialist. He has taken over banking, and car manufacturing, is working on the health-care system, and is laying plans to take over the Internet.

And his bowing to Putin, and Saudi leaders is disgusting.

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:33 pm 192. Plato:

—61. Moho: —You’re absolutely right. When the previous President, a recipient of affirmative action in the form of legacy admission to Yale, demonstrated eight years of incompetence, there was indeed a striking backlash. It was so great that not even you weaseling liars could countenance it and still hang your head whenever the name is mentioned, pretending that you had no part in electing him and didn’t seek to protect his onslaught of incompetence for the duration of his term. —

Eight years of incompetence? You’re absolutely right.

Does this include the two years where Democrats controlled both houses of Congress as well as the two years where Democrats had control of the Senate and enough seats in the House to prevent Republicans from simply forcing legislation through with out Democrat consent (it is amazing how a filibuster is a badge of honor under a Republican and yet an instrument of evil when a Democrat is in office)?

Does this include the Iraq war where Democrats were integral both in its conception and execution as well as its staying power as they continued to vote for its funding all the while spending billions of dollars we did not have to fund their pet projects and vote buying schemes (notice how they did not remove US forces from Iraq despite gaining control of both Houses for the last two years of Bush’s presidency)?

Does this include the Patriot Act which garnered all Democrat (including Hillary Clinton) votes in the US Senate save for TWO (one dissent and one no show)?

Does this include the massive debt laid at the feet of the American people with Democrat signatures on it (including the bail outs which Obama himself voted for)?

Who, exactly are the “weaseling liars” here when Democrats were working hand in hand with George W. Bush pushing their legislation all the while going on nightly news channels bashing Bush for ever one of their perpetrated evils?

Are those “weaseling liars” the Democrats like Obama who berated Bush for having the largest budget deficit in US History (despite the fact the Congress passes budgets and the President cannot constitutionally appropriate funds)?

Are those “weaseling liars” the Democrats like Obama who railed against spending money we did not have all the while spending over FOUR TIMES AS MUCH when they entered office (a $1.6 trillion dollar budget deficit is a tad more than $400 billion) on vote buying schemes?

Are those “weaseling liars” the Democrats like Obama who railed against Bush for exercising policy against terrorists such as rendition (a practice Clinton exercised and one Obama has continued), the military base as Guantanamo (still open), electronic surveillance (something Clinton used heavily and Obama continues), etc?

Are those “weaseling liars” the Democrats like Obama who railed against Bush for holding a lavish, expensive inaugural party all the while Obama spent as much if not more on his as well as extravagant parties at the White House while two wars are waging and soldiers are dying for lack of proper equipment?

Are those “weaseling liars” the Democrats like Obama who railed against Bush for his tax cuts for the rich (a bald face lie any person who has prepared 1040s during the last 6 years can tell you) all the while appointing people to office who explicitly went out of their way to commit tax evasion (including the current head of the US treasury)?

Obama is continuing much of the Bush policy only he is doing so at break neck speeds and yet the silence from the so-called Liberals is deafening.

A striking change indeed.

—61. Moho: —It was so great that the Republican party has suffered, perhaps, permanent damage, and may be ripe for a take-over by a whig-like know-nothing band of ignoramuses who will surely run the part so much further into the ground that their new headquarters address will be written in Chinese characters. You’re absolutely right.—

I cannot tell if your current mental tribulation is one of mental deficiency or of a flexible to paltry moral fiber but I do know one thing: you will not be immune to the hope and change this Democrat President and this Democrat Congress will bring to your doorstep in the form of financial ruin via taxes and inflation.

Enjoy.

—111. Moho: Hmmm…apart from understanding the “appeal to authority” fallacy–its actually when you appeal to the moral or social authority of an individual, not their expertise in a subject.—

Perhaps you should take the time to acquire an education on the matter before posting further Moho as what is known as the appeal to authority is not limited by your narrow definition.

The Fallacious Appeal to Authority occurs when a conclusion’s accuracy is predicated upon the authority of another person; be that authority moral, social, or a matter of credential, expertise, experience, or any other form of authority (thus the use of the word authority which is not limited in scope of field).

The reason this is a fallacious appeal to authority is simple: a conclusion presented is not necessarily true simply because the person who formulated or presented said conclusion is considered an authority on anything regardless of whether or not other people consider the conclusion to be true.

Yes people routinely accept conclusions to be true simply because of the person speaking (and their expertise) and this is accepted but this does not mean the solutions presented are accurate. This of course is meaningless as consensus does not shape or create fact.

Experts are human and humans are fallible both in the areas of accuracy and moral integrity. In other words, people make mistakes and lie.

–171 Moho:—Goy, you’ve selectively quoted from your sources. This is the paragraph that comes right after the one you’ve quoted there. It begins with the word “However”, you should look that up. Its called a qualifying statement, and suggests that it modifies the preceeding statement [I'm laughing at the stupidity involved in misquoting a tract on "appeals to authority" when you've actually linked to the original source. Did you think that no one would look, you idiot?]
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.—-

I would hold off on the laughter or the personal insults when posting something out of context, formulating a fallacious conclusion, and then insulting a person who posted something that is indeed correct.

You see, your problem arose because you either did not read or did not comprehend what you posted regarding the informal fallacy which is not the sum total of all possible fallacious arguments that can be constructed using what is known as the appeal to authority. I will chalk this up to an assumption made on your part out of ignorance.

—-171 Moho: There is nothing fallacious in citing an authority on a subject, if one is relying on the work of that individual, or if one is countering an argument. One could obviously refer to the work of Bill O’Reillym, economist, if there was any. In fact, this is a necessary component ot critical thinking. You’ve completely misunderstood this. concept, not surprisingly.
Again, from my favorite source:

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.—

Ignoring the fact that your quote is dealing with informal logic, an area where logicians treat fallacies somewhat differently than formal logic, and ignoring the fact that your quote was most likely lifted from a wikipedia entry (which itself speaks volumes of your research abilities, gumption, and intellect), your quote merely reinforces that you are wrong in the last sentence when it reads:

“The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principal and can hence be exempted from criticism.”

Even this statement is technically in error which does no surprise me given the fact this is a wikipedia entry as I once saw an entry for steel that read that steel was the by-product of Penguin intimacy.

Arguing that an assertion is true simply because of the nature or quality of the person doing the speaking is inherently fallacious (poor reasoning) because a person’s credentials, experience, expertise, etc, are not guarantors of accuracy or truth.

Apparently you have missed the concept completely, although no surprisingly: citing material from an expert in the field is common and does occur but this alone does not prove anything as an expert in and of himself is not proof of the validity of his comments and assertions.

This is why you are arguing something that sounds good in theory (we accept conclusions from experts in daily life) but falls flat in practice (your medical doctor told you that you had the flue when you had cancer and because of the misdiagnosis, we can not treat you and you are going to die).

This concept is key to the comprehension of the logical fallacy in question and is reinforced by the quotes you have posted and erroneously assumed to support your position.

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:41 pm 193. Moho:

it’s he didn’t do any work to discover if what this blog post was saying was actually true. He never looked at the primary source, because there was no primary source. Joe Klein has put up a post saying this is all nonsense. The truth is Klein has never seen Obama’s thesis. Y’all jumped to your premade conclusions and do not come off looking better for it. Ledeen to wash the egg of his face and next time he should do his homework before adding to the echo chamber

My mistake came in trusting Ledeen to provide an actual source for his material. I won’t make that mistake again.

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:44 pm 194. Sandi:

So this has been exposed as a hoax. Waiting for retraction…

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:48 pm 195. MikeTruthbetold:

This is golden!

“Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write.”

Criticizing the free press (which in reality were just a couple of bloggers) for misquoting Rush Blimp Butt, Michael Ledeen is hurling a completely fabricated quote out of his cage. And as expected, the entire Reich Wing Noise Machine follows right in his footsteps. And Blimp Butt has now admitted that the quote was fabricated: “But, it doesn’t matter” he says. He goes on to explain that he knows for a fact that though the quote was fabricated, it reflects the President’s thinking.

Golden…

Oct 23, 2009 - 1:54 pm 196. narciso:

I think he has already apologized however, what of similar statements that Obama actually made on NPR and other sources, which track with this interpretation, What of his actual thesis, which suggested the
most naive understanding of US Soviet relations. Or the words of Derrick Bell, critical legal studies professor at Harvard
who shares these views, crickets I know.

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:28 pm 197. Dookie Blanket:

Mr. Leeden:

I have a development property in Florida for sale cheap. Would you like to buy it?

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:37 pm 198. Moho:

what of similar statements that Obama actually made on NPR and other sources, which track with this interpretation, What of his actual thesis, which suggested the
most naive understanding of US Soviet relations. Or the words of Derrick Bell, critical legal studies professor at Harvard
who shares these views, crickets I know.

Indeed, what of them? Do you actually have quotes from such statements?

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:37 pm 199. ZOMBIE CONTENTIONS - Watch it, cons:

[...] [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:39 pm 200. Phil:

Moho,

You trusted Ledeen to have an “actual source”?

Why would you do that?

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:47 pm 201. DWhite:

The amazing thing to me is that lies like these come about so often. If the “right” truly have reason to dislike and fear Obama they should say so and why in clear terms. Instead, they make up lies. If I were a foreigner or even an alien trying to decide whose side I would be on, I would choose the one that wasn’t making up lies about the other, all other things being equal. This is not the first, nor will it be the last case of a lie being made up and thrown around. And when it’s disproven? You’d think there would be apologies but no. Because the lies were often purposeful and they served their purpose. Put a little bit more doubt into someone’s head. Maybe someone didn’t see the retraction. Maybe all that sticks with them is the NUMBER of lies and they begin to suspect there is some truth to them somehow, somewhere. It seems like people would get smart and disassociate themselves from those who partake in this practice but I guess it’s true that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:47 pm 202. Punker Again:

Oh momma, can this really be the end
To be punked and exposed as idiots
Must be the right wing blues again.

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:47 pm 203. Stupid hoax…what was he thinking? « The Pondering Dhimmi:

[...] story was repeated on several blogs such as Atlas Shrugs, Jumping in Pools, Pajamas Media, and American [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:48 pm 204. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Watch It, Cons:

[...] Michael Ledeen, and, via Ledeen, Rush Limbaugh, as well as assorted bloggers, were taken in by an apparent hoax today regarding the young Obama’s “missing thesis.” Credible reporting has the subject of that thesis being US-Soviet relations and nuclear arms, but Ledeen somehow ran across a late August post by blogger Brian Lancaster at the “Jumping in Pools” blog claiming that the thesis instead focused on the US Constitution as a document that was “inherently flawed” in its failure to address economic democracy. The source was supposedly Joe Klein, who had supposedly been given privileged access to the thesis. Klein has since denied ever having seen the thesis. [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:54 pm 205. Tcobb:

In the way of a snide remark–it may be that that Obama never wrote the words attributed to him here–but isn’t it amazing how his defenders never seemed to doubt that he did say those words, nor was there any hesitance for defending them?

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:55 pm 206. Rush Limbaugh and the Fox Nation Both Get Duped By Obama Thesis Hoax | Politicususa.com:

[...] original story which had beenrunning on the Fox Nation front page, a post by Michael Ledeen features this supposed quote from Obama’s thesis, “… the Constitution allows for many things, [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 2:57 pm 207. Tcobb:

And of course, to thoroughly discredit his critics all Mr. Obama has to do is make his thesis public. Ha Ha Ha yeah, when pigs like him learn to fly.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:03 pm 208. David:

This article which purports to describe Obama’s thesis has not been sourced yet.

At this point, its conjecture, and until the President releases his educational records, thats probably what it will remain.

Trust, but verify.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:05 pm 209. Moho:

In the way of a snide remark–it may be that that Obama never wrote the words attributed to him here–but isn’t it amazing how his defenders never seemed to doubt that he did say those words, nor was there any hesitance for defending them?

See if you can follow the reasoning here. A)Had Obama said this–or anyone for that matter–they could very well have been observing that the states had coercive class systems in place and that the constitution sought to honor such arrangements. The three fifths compromise, designed to calculate representation for people not allowed to vote because they were not free, also referred to indentured servants “those bound to service”. As you can see, the constitution guaranteed no rights to such people, with the attendant hypocrisy visible for anyone to see. Even you.

B)What makes this article even worse–over and above its completely baseless criticism of the statement–is that Obama never even made this statement.

This is A)a mendacious and factually baseless critique B) based on a non-existent source. I don’t think one could do much worse and still have a job in the normal world. I know in wingnuttia, the rules of the game allow far more incompetence.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:08 pm 210. Vasmosn:

CJ, since you’re waiting for a reply: 1) Bush had 31 czars, while Obama has 32. Bush also had 46 other appointees while Obama has 35.
Congress deciding who the president can appoint for advisors DOES step on the powers of the Executive Branch. They can interview Supreme Court appointees and several others but not even the Cabinet is mentioned in the Constitution.
Most on the left are not trying to silence Obama’s critics. However, many laugh at and deride attempts from the right to criticize just for the sake of criticizing. I haven’t seen the White House “going after” Fox news. Because they choose not to work with them doesn’t mean they are “going after” them. If I work with someone that belittles and criticizes me at every turn I probably will not choose them to be on my team at the company party either.
Obama’s ratings are mostly plummeting, in my opinion, because he is allowing the noise from the right to keep him from doing what he was elected to do. And funny, he continues the policies from Bush and do the Bush lovers give him credit for that? No, but of course we wouldn’t expect them to. But the 29% don’t really matter. It’s the other 71% of the country that have been repeatedly disappointed by Obama that has caused his ratings drop. And I predict it will start to move up again as he accomplishes more items on his agenda.
And I think you confuse freedom of speech with agreement of speech. At no point has Obama or anyone in his administration tried to stop Fox from making its noise and certainly people on the left have had ample opportunity to bash Bush for his efforts to stifle it. The difference is Obama has attempted no silencing of even his harshest critics while Bush pushed through the Patriot Act and allowed illegal wiretapping. If that doesn’t silence critics, what does.
As for Bush’s invitation to Limbaugh and the rest, personally I didn’t care. He can invite who he wants and so can President Obama. Why shouldn’t he be able to? What Constitutional principle are you claiming he’s breaking here. Also, Rachel Maddow barely had a show when Bush was in office and I don’t think she had one when he invited Rush and the crew so I’m not sure whether you just misspoke or you’re lying to make a point there. I would like to see some quotes from the “liberals” that attacked Bush for it though. I’d be willing to bet that most of them took the form of “yep, thats pretty much what we expect of him” and nothing more.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:11 pm 211. The Obama ‘Thesis’ Hoax | GSA Schedule Services:

[...] college thesis, thanks to Joe Klein of Time magazine. Michael Ledeen had jumped on the news, publishing an excerpt that revealed how the president had “doubts” about the “so-called founders.” [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:15 pm 212. DWhite:

TCobb….isn’t it interesting that no one has asked for George Bush’s thesis or Clinton’s or any other president as far as I know. Isn’t it interesting that I’ve never seen ANY president’s birth certificate. Why should he release his thesis when it has absolutely nothing to do with his job? Instead of criticizing potentially real problems there may be with his policies, you instead resort to stuff like this that doesn’t matter? You can talk about the “liberals” all you want but most of the criticisms of Bush were based on his policies, not his getting into Harvard with a “C” average. All that made no difference. It’s what he did in office that the majority of the complaints were over. Or do you want to see his high school transcript also? Maybe we should find out if he sets the table in a capitalist manner. Or whether he sleeps on his left or right side? Which hand he wipes with?

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:20 pm 213. Plato:

—190. Moho:
This is A)a mendacious and factually baseless critique B) based on a non-existent source. I don’t think one could do much worse and still have a job in the normal world. I know in wingnuttia, the rules of the game allow far more incompetence.—

Well, you could still hold a job as a news anchor or journalist at CNN or MSNBC seeing as they just recently slandered and libeled a man with A)a mendacious and factually baseless critique B) based on a non-existent source.

One standard for me, one standard for thee.

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:25 pm 214. Fake Obama Thesis Story Goes Viral, Because Of Stupidity | Obama Biden White House:

[...] No, because apparently that critical news story was vetted by professionals, not Rush Limbaugh and Michael Ledeen, who beef-farted this false Obama thesis story all over the radio and the blogosphere today. [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 3:31 pm 215. Richard Roma:

Mr. Ledeen,

Do you realize that you are lying? Do you realize that you are printing lies? Are you proud of yourself for attacking someone with made up lies?

Oct 23, 2009 - 4:17 pm 216. Obama’s Thesis: Open Disdain for the Constitution | The Daily Instigator:

[...] A new excerpt has surfaced from Obama’s college thesis. One quote in particular is getting a lot of attention. “… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy.” Okay, the entire quote is despicable and unthinkable for a future American president. Referring to the authors of the Constitution as “so-called” founders. Defining economic freedom as the redistribution of wealth. It’s not only disgusting, it’s very revealing of the Marxist point of view that Obama applies to everything he does. He can’t chalk this up to youthful ignorance. He made similar comments as recently as 2001 and even more recently when he told Joe the Plumber he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” Obama has utter disdain for everything this country stands for and he intends to remake to fit his socialist agenda. LINK [...]

Oct 23, 2009 - 4:26 pm 217. Finzi Holst:

Where Obama is concerned here is a partial list of concerns.

I find it distasteful and unconscionable that Obama is willfully, knowingly using remarks by his critics — out of context — to stir up racial tensions and anxieties. It is reminiscient of what he taught Acorn students or how he advised Odinga — to try to play on racial anxieties to the ill-informed (those who rely on the MSM) to advantage.

I’d rather hear why Obama won’t clarify his connections with Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Acorn, et al; why he won’t release any of the following:

1. Occidental College records — Not released
2. Columbia College records — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — “Not available”
4. Harvard College records — Not released
5. Selective Service Registration — Not released
6. Medical records — Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule — “Not available”
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth — Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
13. Obama’s Record of baptism — Not released or “Not available”
14. Obama’s Illinois State Senate records — “Not available”

As far as the “Press” go, they have been abettors throughout the process and to this day. Barky’s czars have not been given scrutiny, neither has Barkycare, nor any of his questionable associations or the diplomatic concessions he is making in direct opposition to our national interest.

“So, this is Utopia, is it? Well I beg your pardon I thought it was Hell.” — Max Beerbohm

Oct 23, 2009 - 4:54 pm 218. Peter Cohen:

Dear Mr. Ledeen,

I can be no better than cryptic at my age. Thanks for the apology but it’s a still a shonda that you printed something so carelessly.

Permit me to quote my mentor, the king of late-night aphorisms:

Ideology is only a part-time snob. It recognizes reason but snubs the truth.

Spreading rumors is no panacea for fear-driven impotence, fear and resentment. Not that I am accusing anyone of such.

Duck when you throw a political boomerang. It is bound sooner or later to hit you smack in the middle of your psychic keppie.

Don’t hunt for bear, if you have studied the woods but never been in one.

One apology is human. Two apologies is annoying. Three apologies is
daffy.

Forgive yourself. I’m too busy.

Shecky “Bigboy” Nietzsche

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:04 pm 219. Matt:

How about instead somebody ask Ledeen about his Community College Thesis “My Pajamas Have a Flap so I can pull stuff out my ass easier”. End Notes or Footnotes when citing your ass?

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:14 pm 220. I'm With Stupid:

Maybe you should unite with Orly “Don’t Taitz me, man”

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:27 pm 221. jimmycraxcorn:

what a sad bunch you’ve collected here, littledeen. btw, nice work on the yellowcake forgery, if indeed that was you – all hail the maybe-not-so-noble lie!

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:29 pm 222. Sam:

This story has been debunked as a fake. This is not from Obama’s thesis.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:32 pm 223. Moho:

Plato
Well, you could still hold a job as a news anchor or journalist at CNN or MSNBC seeing as they just recently slandered and libeled a man with A)a mendacious and factually baseless critique B) based on a non-existent source.

One standard for me, one standard for thee.

This is called straw man, because I never defended those media outlets, nor commented on them. In fact, Ledeen notes in this very article that he found the “hoax” himself, and using his own judgment decided to publish it without fact checking. I don’t know why you’d assume I cheer-lead for CNN and MSNBC…that’s just you looking to be pwned. And you were. Ledeen should take responsibility for himself, and you should let him, instead of weak whining attempts to divert the blame.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:34 pm 224. Michael Ledeen:

give it up; I had zero involvement.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:50 pm 225. Moho:

Michael Ledeen at 5:50 pm

“give it up; I had zero involvement.”

Ledeen, five hours earlier:

I cam across it on Twitter, read the blog, found it interesting, and posted on it.

You took responsibility for it before; no one forced you to publish without fact-checking. You’re not known for your honesty or good intentions, but its not too late for turning over a new leaf.

Oct 23, 2009 - 5:58 pm 226. joanbob:

Obama, the so-called “constitutional scholar,” hasn’t ever read the Federalist Papers in law school. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have made that ignorant comment. I got assigned that as reading in my Con Law class and my law school wasn’t as fancy as Harvard Law.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:16 pm 227. myth buster:

Look! The Muslim is lecturing us about honesty and good intentions! Most of us here have enough sense to know that Islam has no respect for the Truth.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:32 pm 228. Moho:

Look! The Muslim is lecturing us about honesty and good intentions! Most of us here have enough sense to know that Islam has no respect for the Truth.

Trust me when I say that such statements have absolutely no effect on me, but speak volumes about you and the dozens of others here to claim to have no tolerance for bigotry, yet never counter such statements.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:34 pm 229. Plato:

—223. Moho: This is called straw man,—

Wrong. I did not use the straw man fallacy but thanks again from demonstrating a complete ignorance regarding fallacious arguments. I suggest you acquire an education on the matter before commenting further (I do not believe another Wiki quote will cut it).

For your edification, the straw man fallacy is fallacious argumentation due to the substitution and dissolution of an argument that was not made. That is where the phrase straw man originated.

I did not use one argument to dismiss yours but merely reinforced your ignorant statement by point out the facts of the matter. Should I chalk this up to a lack of moral fiber or a lack on intellectual capacity on your part?

— 223. Moho: because I never defended those media outlets, nor commented on them.—

I did not claim that you had made that claim. I did not claim, explicitly or otherwise, that you had commented on those media outlets.

Should we add reading comprehension to your list of tasks to master before formulating a comment?

— 223. Moho: In fact, Ledeen notes in this very article that he found the “hoax” himself,—

I was not addressing the material of the article in question. This is obvious when one reads what I wrote (either you did not read it or you did not understand).

No, I was addressing your ignorant comment regarding the presentation of factually baseless critiques relying upon non-existent sources and the occupation of a job in the “normal world.”

This of course was a snide, ignorant comment to insult people who dwell in the land of “wingnuttia” which I assume is a land occupied by people who disagree with you.

How open-minded of you.

— 223. Moho: and using his own judgment decided to publish it without fact checking.—

Which leads to my point (which you mistakenly think is a straw man):

A person who does not fact check and presents a baseless, source less, libeling or slanderous commentary can and does find occupation in the main stream media including CNN and MSNBC (among others).

— 223. Moho: I don’t know why you’d assume I cheer-lead for CNN and MSNBC…—

Who said any such thing?
I never said or implied any such thing.

I suggest you stop assuming things in text where they do not exist. If you have difficulty understanding something, feel free to ask for clarification rather than to make assertions based upon baseless assumptions.

My comment had nothing to do with your choice of news media viewing preference but with your ignorant comment regarding occupational ignorance which you ignorantly attribute to only one political spectrum (most likely the one opposite of your own; how odd).

— 223. Moho: that’s just you looking to be pwned. And you were.—

When a person who obviously does not comprehend material taught in a freshmen intro to philosophy class starts making claims to “pwn” me or anybody else, I know that person has reached the end of their mental abilities which, for you, did not take you very far.

How quaint.

— 223. Moho: Ledeen should take responsibility for himself, and you should let him, instead of weak whining attempts to divert the blame.—

Perhaps you should learn to read before posting. I do not know who Ledeen is nor do I know what he wrote as I was not defending him or anybody else.

I was making a comment regarding the ignorance you decided to share with the world in your previous comment.

Do not blame me for your own deficiencies.

I do not know what you have that passes for an education but I suggest you return and ask for a full and immediate refund as it has obviously left you wanting.

Be well boyo.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:46 pm 230. Moho:

Plato–> One standard for me, one standard for thee.

Was I not the “thee”, in that statement, you fool?

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:52 pm 231. Plato:

—-229. Moho: Was I not the “thee”, in that statement, you fool?—-

Were you the subject of that common knowledge quote?

You do not know and you certainly did not ask before jumping to your own ignorant conclusions based upon baseless assumptions.

No, I was not referring to you but I was referring to the news organizations I cited as they have their own hypocritical standards. But of course that is of little consequence to you as you are not interested in truth or fact but apparently prefer fallacy to fact.

“Fool?” LMAO. First I am “pwned” by the magnificence of your intellectual prowess (lol) and now I am a fool because you chose to make baseless assumptions rather than exercise your brain in menial reading comprehension and critical thinking.

You are now dangerously close to perpetrating the very act you railed against earlier on and, by your own logic, will be unworthy of occupation in any “normal” world.

Oct 23, 2009 - 6:59 pm 232. Plato:

—225. Moho: You took responsibility for it before; no one forced you to publish without fact-checking. You’re not known for your honesty or good intentions, but its not too late for turning over a new leaf.–

I find this comment amusing considering the fact you have now posted several posts comprised of ignorant assertions, baseless assumptions, half-truths, and juvenile insults.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and learn to fact check things thoroughly before posting in the future. Well, perhaps not; that would make too much sense and logic is apparently not a tool in your repertoire.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:03 pm 233. skylark:

Tcobb wrote:

“but isn’t it amazing how his defenders never seemed to doubt that he did say those words”

Wow, even the wingnuts think you shouldn’t believe anything Leeden writes.

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:21 pm 234. ignatov:

“Look! The Muslim is lecturing us about honesty and good intentions!”

And the coloreds are trying to sit in the front of the bus!

Oct 23, 2009 - 7:44 pm 235. Joan:

While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty,

Back to wealth distribution, are we? What is it this idiot doesn’t get? Anyone in this country can succeed and raise himself/herself from their roots by hard work and diligence. The Founders didn’t mention wealth distribution because it was and is repulsive to the majority of the people.

Oct 23, 2009 - 8:00 pm 236. DW Bram:

NICK G , There’s a thing called child support for a single mother of 4.
There’s also her famly. Where are they ? The people in Japan don’t have this
big of a problem. I bet they don’t know what a food stamp looks like. They
don’t even glance at the government for help.

Oct 23, 2009 - 9:01 pm 237. Zaphod Beeblebrox:

It’s amazing to me how many blind cheerleaders there are for Obama in here.

1) How can you support someone, by even the LIBERAL standard of SNL, has accomplished “NOTHING!”

2) How can you support someone, who doesn’t believe in the MOST fundamental document ever granted man. The document that has granted mankind more freedom and prosperity than we’ve EVER known.

Then you have those who make outrageous and fallacious claims about Conservative (NOT Republican) commentators. Commentators who are WITHIN their full rights to criticize Obama’s anti-constitutional moves to expand government power.

IMO, if you are going to make an outrageous claim of racism, you should back it up. I for one want to know HOW Rush Limbaugh is racist when his TOP assistant is a black man. When his house assistant (who he bought a cadillac healthcare plan for.) got cancer, he paid for the treatments out of his pocket.

But in the end, I just need to bring up quotes from the founding fathers, to show just how far off base you marxists are:

Here is Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6th, 1816:
“To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

Thomas Jefferson:
“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Governments of the United States of America, 1787:
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

Wealth redistribution, AKA Populism, collectivism, marxism, socialism, communism, progressive policies DO NOT HELP THE POOR. They ENSLAVE the poor to the government.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:18 pm 238. VAL:

Moho… “Yeah, the skys the limit when you’re a black man, no doubt about that.”

The only surprising thing about the last election is that McCain did as well as he did — McCain inspired about as much warmth as a viper to the testicles. When you consider the years of ‘white guilt’ the media has been trying to tell white people to have, the race-peddlers (the AlSharptains and JessieJacksons of the world) going on at length (except when they think the mics are off), the media fawning all over him like he was the second-coming of Watergate, the blacks who voted for him just b/c was black (cite: those who were read McCain’s policy, even told Palin was Obama’s running mate, and said they loved all of it, but that it was his policies they voted for…uh, please…) in the worst kind of racism*, and the cynical forget-thinking-react-with-emotion speech patterning, plus the amorphous canvas allowing projection, the absurdity of ’speaking like a conservative’ on issues (did anyone actually believe this tired old stunt?…sadly, yes — thank you pathetic public “education” system!), and the sloganism (some of it an unpleasant reflection to previous democracies that were overthrown**)…yesh.

The sad truth is, things have swung so radically stupid that you do have a better shot at anything, esp in front of a camera, if you’re black. And, all cards on the table, I’m thrilled to have a black man as President, same as I was for a black man to be secretary of state, a black woman to be national security adviser and later sec of state. I’m thrilled because every child SHOULD realize they can excel no matter their color, background, sex, or whatever: that is America.

But Policy rules the day and I don’t care what your color, gender, sexual preference, height, shoe size, length of nose hair, is or if you’re right or left handed or anything: policy, policy, policy.

In this, however, I seem to be the minority.

*Hey, I grew up in a poor as hell neighborhood where whites were not minority. I get the whole “hope and change” thing b/c I recall that same message from my childhood (” just vote for us, we’ll fix it all! “), and they did, and it didn’t get fixed, but they were so dependent that they kept voting for the same lying shills who had no desire to fix a problem that was so lucrative for votes with so little effort. I get wanting to see someone you can immediately identify with and who you think shares your values and point of view — esp if you’re black and voting democrat for 40 years of the same old trite line — which is kind of a shame since Obama doesn’t get it, and has a serious problem with the truth (unless you’re familiar with orwellian linguistic methodology). I get it and that’s a foolish emotional reaction, not (direct) racism.

** No cards being played here, just a parallel of history of how democracies shoot themselves in the head with tyranny, viewed with a non-partisan eye. For the record, in this regard I’ll happily take Bush to task as well — though, for crying out loud, Obama makes Bush look like he has a halo by comparison.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:21 pm 239. Moho:

Plato. Simply saying something doesn’t make it so. As I told you in your other incarnation, I’m not your wife, and I don’t feel sorry for you.

Oct 23, 2009 - 11:41 pm 240. Ken:

I guess Jimmy Carter is right after all. Opposition to Obama is deeply rooted in racism and it is evident from some of the posts out here. I can’t believe you guys can’t get over the “Muslim” and “Hussein” references. Do you know that Christians in Pakistan have names such as Mohammed and Ali? Ignorance is bliss though so you guys can enjoy your plain, simple lives living up this lie after your Sunday prayers.

I also find it ironic that the same people who were following Bush as zombies while he was desecrating the constitution through his policies now express fear that Obama is doing the same. Mr. Ledeen, do you think Obama’s so called “socialist/Marxist” policies are changin the Constitution and the vision of the founding fathers or were Bush’s fascist policies of creating a stronger police state with the all powerful executive branch doing that? Please save your concerns for the Constitution for another life!

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:51 am 241. Plato:

—232. Moho: Plato. Simply saying something doesn’t make it so.—

Indeed which is why, thus far, you have been found wanting in every comment you have made: assertion does not make fact.

It is a shame you lacked this level of clarity back when you attempted to lecture others on matters clearly above your pay grade.

—As I told you in your other incarnation, I’m not your wife, and I don’t feel sorry for you—

First you “pwnd” me with your gargantuan intellect. Then I was a fool. Now I am an amalgamation of characters posting here seeking your pity?

How quaint.

Should I take your obfuscation and misdirection as a token admission that you know that I know that you know less than nothing here?

Mene, Mene, Tekel u-Pharsin.

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:58 am 242. Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts - Truckingboards Truck Drivers Forum:

[...] [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 4:26 am 243. Amar Twink:

[...] post is from here. Visit the link to read more.Yep, back in 1999 in Chicago Larry and Barry hooked up twice and [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 4:51 am 244. Online Guitar Tuition:

A correction to my summary:

Joe Klein has had these 10 pages for a YEAR, and did not release them before the election.

Oct 24, 2009 - 5:05 am 245. DB:

MIchael Ledeen, when you see the comments of your fans and followers surely you must be ashamed of yourself.

Oct 24, 2009 - 5:11 am 246. The Art of the Prank » Blog Archive » Obama Hates (Not) the Constitution:

[...] the truth. Apparently, Pajamas Media’s Michael Ledeen was the conduit, as he dug it up and posted it earlier this week, apparently believing it to be true. (Not the first time Ledeen and Pajamas Media [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 6:28 am 247. Moho:

Should I take your obfuscation and misdirection as a token admission that you know that I know that you know less than nothing here?

You shouldn’t. But if it will keep your fragile ego intact through this long lonely night, then why not? I don’t mind.

Oct 24, 2009 - 6:57 am 248. goy:

@171. Moho: – … you’ve selectively quoted from your sources.

Wrong. I comprehensively quoted the first several sources I found. Every single one of them mentions expertise, contrary to your stupid claim.

Oct 24, 2009 - 7:55 am 249. Terry Byrd:

It’s apparent that our president is an anti-American with a chip on his shoulder. He surrounds himself with like-minded freedom haters. These childish Utopians are trying to turn America into a giant, nuclear-armed Somalia. Just think, Harvard-educated men with childish dreams of Utopia and mad because they are being criticized for their wild actions.

Oct 24, 2009 - 8:02 am 250. Moho:

Goy:

No. I excerpted the next paragraph in the first paragraph that modified the one that you posted. It clearly stated:

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.

Elsewhere:

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

Your statement was wrong, borne of a dishonest investment only in winning, not in truth. I’m not surprised, that’s the obvious motto of your movement. We both know you were wrong, and that you lied–I just proved it here for the third time on this subject–I don’t care who else knows it and I consider this exchange finished.

Oct 24, 2009 - 8:07 am 251. Mainstream Media gets punked - Ajarn Forum - Living and Teaching In Thailand:

[...] No, because apparently that critical news story was vetted by professionals, not Rush Limbaugh and Michael Ledeen, who beef-farted this false Obama thesis story all over the radio and the blogosphere today. Read [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 9:36 am 252. 43/w/vet:

It’s amazing how many of you people just love to jump on the bash-Obama bandwagon for any silly bit of fluffy nonsense that seems to discredit him…

Did any of you bother to check the source? Did a single one of you exercise the merest bit of intellectual rigor in reviewing this patently absurd claim?

Let’s see a show of hands for those of you who did and realize that the “source” quoted for this piece is a satirical site much like “The Onion”……

Funny thing for those of you so eager to trash his image, the fact that he never wrote anything like will not sway your opinion in the slightest, while you MAY refrain (not a foregone conclusion by any means) from citing this as an example – you will no doubt continue to believe that this is proof of his socialist leanings..

Oddly enough I have asked a number of frothing-at-the-mouth Obama detractors to define socialism, and the almost universal answer is “what Obama is doing to us now”…..sigh…buy a dictionary already..

Thomas Jefferson once stated that the survival of our Republic depends upon a well informed populace..

When we have people so dedicated to hate and absolute rejection of anyone or anything that doesn’t fit in their artificially narrow perspective -then we have reached a point were we may no longer deserve a republic.

If so significant a portion of our nation subscribes to the non-linear magical thinking – then we do not deserve, collectively, a nation as magnificent as the US was conceived to be…

Oct 24, 2009 - 10:01 am 253. goy:

@236. Moho: – I excerpted…

Heh. You “excerpted”. Thanks. This is also known as “selectively quoting”.

With this statement, you openly admit that “you’ve selectively quoted from your sources”. That’s exactly what you accused me of doing, which I did not – I quoted from every source I found.

Project much?

Here’s more:

- Neither of the two selectively quoted excerpts you just copied and pasted without attribution support your idiotic assertion regarding “moral or social authority”.

- IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the second one, we find the following, which you conveniently ignored:

“Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person’s reliability in the area.”

“If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable. ”

“This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert.”

Maybe you just need to go look up ‘authority’ in a thesaurus, ‘ho.

Every single definition I found included a reference to “expert” and/or “expertise”. There are more, but what’s the point? Your snapped-shut-steel-trap mind is as incapable of comprehending fallacy as it is incapable of comprehending the verdict provided by the sources already cited. They ALL demonstrate the same thing: appeal to authority fallacy is not limited to the use of “moral or social authority“, as you myopically claimed, and are now trying to defend instead of just admitting it was a stupid thing to write. Expertise can be – and indeed often is – a factor, which reveals your earlier assertion to be patent nonsense, as usual.

Anyone who follows the links to those resources can demonstrate all this for themselves, ‘ho, so the ‘exchange’ was finished long before you realized it.

Oct 24, 2009 - 10:14 am 254. narciso:

Not that it matters, but the ‘thesis’ excerpts are something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded#

As foe Derrick Bell, his is the primer, that Obama used in his Civil Rights and the Law, in this profile, when you link to the enclosed syllabuses:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&ref=politics&pagewanted=all

Note the illustration on the board is about
Alinsky power dynamics, not law school cases

Oct 24, 2009 - 10:43 am 255. kravitz:

should we serve turkey for thanksgiving or Michael Ledeen?

Oct 24, 2009 - 10:56 am 256. Booky:

This was as well researched as Mr. Ledeens research supporting war with Iraq.

Keep it up, Mike!

You can’t find WMD or a college thesis but perhaps you could use your talents in other areas: try finding the loch ness monster or the yeti!

Michael Ledeen is the Richard Heene of politics.
Ahmad Chalabi was his balloon boy.

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:04 am 257. Michael Ledeen:

Nonsense. If you bother to read my books, you’ll find that I thought the Iraq war was a strategic error. I wanted a non-military action against Iran. Still do. Criticized Bush and Cheney no end. Try “The War Against the Terror Masters” for my views at the time, and “Accomplice to Evil” for the latest. It makes a great Christmas gift.

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:22 am 258. freepatriot:

have you morons figured out that you’ve been played yet ???

this “thesis” is a fake, and you idiots are a JOKE

how low can you nut jobs go ???

stop trying to participate in intellectual exercises, you idiots ain’t got the brain pan to compete

in a battle of wits, all of you are UNARMED

ROTFLMAO, AT YOU FOOLS

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:23 am 259. goy:

@238. narciso: – Note the illustration on the board is about Alinsky power dynamics, not law school cases.

BHO idolator Kantor’s (and/or her editors’) choice of that photo was clearly a nod to the Alinskyite left who would be some of the very few who recognized what BHO was ‘teaching’ that day. If a picture is worth a thousand words, that one covers a goodly chunk of Das Kapital and the left’s ongoing game plan to turn academic institutions into activist factories.

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:25 am 260. Plato:

—247. Moho: You shouldn’t. But if it will keep your fragile ego intact through this long lonely night, then why not? I don’t mind.—

What you are doing right now has a word. It is call PROJECTION.

You post nonsense masquerading as fact to berate others and then insult the intellect of others using material that is clearly wrong. PROJECTION.

You post statements that are patently false and then attack others for lies and distortions. PROJECTION.

You arguments are systematically dismantled, ignorant piece by ignorant piece, and yet you claim to “pwn” one person after another. PROJECTION.

The only thing you are missing here is a seat in Congress and with the blatant lies, the wanton ignorance, and the audacity of stupidity you have demonstrated here, you would have no problem running and winning a seat.

Be well boyo.

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:29 am 261. Limbaugh Duped By Obama Thesis Hoax:

[...] Michael Ledeen posted the phony quote as satire on his blog last Wednesday, and goes as follows: “… the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:32 am 262. Plato:

—-250. Moho:Goy: No. I excerpted the next paragraph in the first paragraph that modified the one that you posted. It clearly stated:
However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted: —-

Read the two words “informal fallacy”. Is your intellect so limited that you cannot grasp Intro to Philosophy 101: your wiki excerpt is not the sum total comprising every instance of the logical fallacy known as appeal to authority.

This has been covered many times and you have been shown to be in err on this at least twice. I find it laughable that you have the audacity to lecture others when you cannot grasp the simple concept known as the appeal to authority.

——–250. Moho: Elsewhere: Your statement was wrong, borne of a dishonest investment only in winning, not in truth.—-

His argument is correct because he posted factual information relating to the fallacious appeal to authority. His argument is correct because of the FACTS he posted; not the intent behind his posts.

That you would even argue intent you ASSUME rather than the facts he presented speaks volumes of your abilities here boyo as well as your moral integrity.

——–250. Moho: I’m not surprised, that’s the obvious motto of your movement. We both know you were wrong—

What he posted relating to fallacy of logic is factually accurate. Your surprise and baseless assertions aside, what he posted can be found in any remedial text book taught in an university level class.

In fact, what he posted is considered common knowledge.

——–250. Moho: and that you lied–I just proved it here for the third time on this subject–I don’t care who else knows it and I consider this exchange finished.—

You proved that he lied by taking an excerpt from a wiki post and erroneously applying what you read but did not comprehend to mean what it did not say?

Intellectual ineptitude on your part is bad enough but I suppose you felt that was not good enough and decided to add intellectual dishonesty to the fray.

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:42 am 263. GayPatriot » The Obama Thesis Hoax & the the “hidden” records of his past:

[...] [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:54 am 264. Moho:

Ledeen:

I don’t have time to read your books. But are you sure that your opinion about the war in Iraq being a strategic error didn’t emerge after that fact was impossible to hide? Because its pretty clear that you were here disregarding the idea that it was a strategic error, and in fact were advocating it no matter what the cost:

So it’s good news when Scowcroft comes out against the desperately-needed and long overdue war against Saddam Hussein and the rest of the terror masters. As usual, Scowcroft has it backwards: He’s still pushing Saudi Arabia’s Prince Abdullah’s line that you’ve just got to deal with the Palestinian question. Blessedly, President Bush knows by now that the Palestinian question can only be addressed effectively once the war against Saddam and his ilk has been won. And then Scowcroft says “Saddam is a problem, but he’s not a problem because of terrorism.”

This is the head of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Commission? Doesn’t he read the newspapers? He doesn’t seem to realize that Saddam is actively supporting al Qaeda, and Abu Nidal, and Hezbollah.

However, nobody is perfect, and Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.”

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.

That’s our mission in the war against terror.

The most dangerous course of action is Scowcroft’s: Finesse Iraq, and squander our energies fecklessly trying to broker peace between Israel and the terrorists.

Sounds like you were saying full speed ahead. And then, like the coward you are, regrouped as a cooler head.

Oct 24, 2009 - 11:54 am 265. They Found The Thesis In A Silver, Jiffy Pop-Like Balloon In Colorado « Around The Sphere:

[...] the truth. Apparently, Pajamas Media’s Michael Ledeen was the conduit, as he dug it up and posted it earlier this week, apparently believing it to be true. (Not the first time Ledeen and Pajamas Media [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:00 pm 266. Moho:

Ledeen! Are you going to answer the question you liar? Or are you going to maintain that you thought the war was a strategic mistake, when you advocated it explicitly even if–and apparently, especially if–it was a mistake. Loser.

Oct 24, 2009 - 12:52 pm 267. 43/w/vet:

227. Moho:

Look! The Muslim is lecturing us about honesty and good intentions! Most of us here have enough sense to know that Islam has no respect for the Truth.

Trust me when I say that such statements have absolutely no effect on me, but speak volumes about you and the dozens of others here to claim to have no tolerance for bigotry, yet never counter such statements.
——————————————————————————————————–
Interesting exchange – but there is a valid point here – though neither person understands why…

The first person who is attempting to singularly bash Islam is making a true enough statement, though nearly not inclusive enough..

Religion as a practice has no respect for “truth” – it is the epitome of magical thinking – the rejection of reason and observation, the denial of critical review and analysis of assumption.

Dogma in all forms is the cause of literally all the world’s ills, and while religion justly claims the majority of this phenomenon – it by no means can justly lay claim to all.

The belief that any position is or can be absolute allows the person holding the belief to avoid any responsibility for it – for if you admit that the position might not be absolute, then you must consider the consequences of being wrong.

Can you imagine people choosing to burn one another at the stake if they could admit to themselves that perhaps the entire notion of witchcraft is absurd?

Can you imagine people being willing to strap a bomb to their chest and willfully detonate it if they could admit doubt as to a cosmic Disneyland filled with virgins, harps or whatever fantasy your religion promises?

If every human being employed their reason, and could admit to themselves that we have no definite answers, only the best (sometimes) guesses of previous human beings to work from – that there would be such reluctance to address the myriad ills that beset us? There would no doubt still be disagreements, but the disagreements would based on reason, logic and therefore be pervious to superior evidence or argument – and any solution would be based on a reasoned expectation of applicability…

Oct 24, 2009 - 1:08 pm 268. Moho:

More of Ledeen’s advocacy for the war in Iraq:

Question #2: Okay, well if we are all so certain about the dire need to invade Iraq, then when do we do so?

Ledeen: Yesterday.
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=23277

Saddam Hussein is a terrible evil, and President Bush is entirely right in vowing to end his reign of terror . . . . If we come to Baghdad, Damascus and Tehran as liberators, we can expect overwhelming popular support. They will join us if they believe we are serious, and they will only believe we are serious when they see us winning. Our first move must therefore show both our power and our liberating intent. . . . .

And just as a successful democratic revolution in Iran would inspire the Iraqis to join us to remove Saddam, it is impossible to imagine that the Iranian people would tolerate tyranny in their own country once freedom had come to Iraq. Syria would follow in short order.

Hardball August 19, 2002
MICHAEL LEDEEN, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: …I think in the case of Iraq, the strongest argument for a preemptive strike is to say what I believe which is that we have in effect been at war with Iraq for quite a long time. They have attacked us repeatedly. They tried to assassinate one former American president. They’ve supported terrorists that have carried out terrorist activities within the United States…So this would not be a preemptive strike. This would be a response…

BARNICLE: So Michael, that begs the question that if we continue to go down this road, as articulated by President Bush at West Point, do we really need as a nation more enemies around the globe?

LEDEEN: I don’t think winning this war will create enemies, quite the contrary. I think that enemies would take heart from our failure to wage this war and even more so from our failure to win the war. I don’t believe for a minute that the European leaders from today are saying go slow, take it easy…

They know we’re going to win this war and they cannot stay out of it. It’s just too damaging to them. So I think you’ll see a huge change once the war starts and I think that if President Bush is to be faulted for anything in this so far, it’s that he’s taken much too long to get on with it, much too long.

There are actually even more examples. I have more respect for even the dumbest poster here, such as Delia, because they at least admit to their ridiculous beliefs and support. What kind of moron claims that he opposed the war, when there is a wealth of his own written statements that anyone can find in thirty seconds that show inconclusively just the opposite.

Oct 24, 2009 - 1:10 pm 269. Moho:

and of course, that’s conclusively:

that he opposed the war, when there is a wealth of his own written statements that anyone can find in thirty seconds that show conclusively just the opposite.

Oct 24, 2009 - 1:11 pm 270. Alireza:

11. shiraz said:

“Alireza please have something of substance to say rather than lashing back to defend something indefensible!!! Obama nation is as blind, as illiterate…”

Mr. Shirazi, by now you’ve read Dr. Ledeen’s new finding regarding this BASELESS article.

Now, let’s forget about Dr. Ledeen and lets find out if you too have the BALLS to admit what you said above is more a reflection of you and people like you? IF you admire Dr. Ledeen at least he showed some BALLS and came out and apologized, but in your case….

Oct 24, 2009 - 2:39 pm 271. Whoops, Limbaugh Falls For Obama Thesis Hoax « Sensico:

[...] started with a satire piece from another blogger, then another blogger, Michael Ledeen, took the satire as truth even though the post tag was labeled “satire”. Then Rush Limbaugh took that as truth [...]

Oct 24, 2009 - 8:58 pm 272. Toddynho:

Speaking as someone currently living aboard (and between three nations – yes, I’m not proud of my carbon footprint), I need to inform the RIGHT WING OF AMERICA that they are throughly embarrassing the United States. Birthers, teabaggers, Olympic haters, Nobel prize whiners, Beck, Rush, Dijonmustardgate and the First lady wearing shorts, these are all topics discussed around the water-coolers of nations around the world, too but instead of soliciting the rabid snot-bubble-blowing revolution the RIGHT is trying to foster, the general consensus seems to be “WOW are these people nuts!”. I really don’t think the right wing of America knows how much the world is laughing at them, and when not laughing, morbidly curious as to how people can be so daft and hateful. Continue your screams of patriotism, freedom, liberty and other vapid rhetorical weapons of the intellectually meek, decent Americans whom have sadly been eclipsed by all the hyperbolic noise and nonsense will eventually find their voice and raise above the current signal to noise ratio. I certainly hope so for the sake of our international reputation. Because it was bad before, now with the wingnuts screaming until they are blue in the face, it’s getting worse. When I thought Americans couldn’t be perceived as being any dumber, the right wing goes for the gold. Thanks Bleak et.al. You do America proud. s/

Oct 25, 2009 - 5:29 am 273. Laz:

Another beautiful Sunday! Smiles, promenades in the park, a football game or two later on the day accompanied by beer-thirty friends, a silly hoax or two about the President unmasked-silly, or rather, serenely-unmasked. Laughs, happiness, gladness. Right and left, black and white, rich and poor. My country, your country, our country. Today is ours, enjoy it!

Oct 25, 2009 - 6:22 am 274. isaiah:

To Jim in Virginia

You might want to spell check your own posts before questioning whether others first language is English. I am sure your first language is English because you are from Virginia where no other language is spoken. Or is Jjim? Could be because as stated you are from Virginia.
Jjim in Virginia:

Oct 25, 2009 - 7:55 am 275. caterpillar23:

TO “MUSH LIMBRAIN” THE VERBAL TERRORIST AND THE ENEMY WITHIN: ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT I HOPE THAT THIS LATEST SCHEME OF YOURS WILL LEAD YOUR CAREER IN A DOWNWARD SPIRAL.

AFTER READING SOME OF THE COMMENTS OF YOUR SUPPORTERS, YOU ARE A REAL THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY. MOST OF THE NEGATIVE COMMENTS, HOWEVER, ARE FROM INTELLIGENT, INFORMED PEOPLE WHO FIND YOU AS DANGEROUS AS I TO THE WELFARE AND TO THE SAFETY OF GOOD, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

ALSO, TO THE SPONSORS: I WILL, PERSONALLY, BOYCOTT YOUR PRODUCTS AND SPREAD THE WORD. REMEMBER, THE “PEN IS MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD!”

Bev of Boston, MA

Oct 25, 2009 - 10:17 am 276. Greg Zotta:

Obama said he was going to be transparent, so why doesn’t he release all the documents? This is what I said about Obama’s transparency:
President Obama states he wants to have the most transparent government ever. He wrote a memo that reads: “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” I believe you should lead by example. That is why I do not understand why Obama does not release his birth certificate, or his college papers.

The media wants to demonize the people who are requesting the information calling them “Birthers.” The media does not understand why these people are in such an uproar about where Obama was born. Perhaps they are unaware that according to the Constitution you have to be a natural born citizen to be the President of the United States.

President Obama has released a document called a Certificate of Live Birth, wherein it states he was born in Hawaii, but it is not the birth certificate. That would be sufficient if the original birth certificate were lost or destroyed. But that is not the case. The original does exist but Obama refuses to disclose it. That is what I find puzzling. Here is a man who in order to gain the public trust, claims he is for transparency, yet he refuses to release the birth certificate or his college papers. Maybe he doesn’t understand the meaning to the word transparency, which according to Webster’s dictionary means clearness, to make bright or clear; to make evident; to free from accusation. When there is a contradiction between what he says and what he does you begin to question, “What is he trying to hide? What will those documents reveal?” The point is not necessarily where he was born, but why he refuses to release the documents.

The media should be trying to ascertain the truth and request that President Obama release the documents instead of criticizing the people who are looking for the answers. The media should at least ask him why he is refusing to disclose the birth certificate and college papers. The freedom of the press is recognized in the first amendment of the Constitution because they are supposed to be the watchdogs over the government.

President Obama, you state you want to have the most transparent government ever, then I say release the documents.

Greg Zotta

Oct 25, 2009 - 4:26 pm 277. Dave:

Thank you, Mike Truthbetold #195, for reminding me that it is always a waste of time to follow a link to Media Matters.

Their whole website is a maze of partial quotes and selective editing to “support” their leftist points. They simply can’t be trusted. Sometimes, the video they link doesn’t even support their headline teaser.

Oct 25, 2009 - 8:35 pm 278. Jay Arr Eff:

Oi, wingnuts: I’m pretty sure that all he meant was that the (new) American government did not change the way the country was run nearly as much as people had expected (or nearly as much as modern people believe).

Oct 25, 2009 - 11:43 pm 279. 1 Boring Old Man » backsliding…:

[...] Constitution]. Limbaugh got this information from a Pajama’s Media Blog by Michael Ledeen: Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts by Michael [...]

Oct 25, 2009 - 11:53 pm 280. Richard Posner:

I’m afraid that once your friends are out of office, making your own reality doesn’t work as well. You can still lie or tell untruths, but fewer of those addicted to obedience will believe you, and the majority not quite addicted but convinced that everything’s basically o.k. (perhaps because some Invisible Friend is In Charge) will not believe just because you’re in charge.

On the other hand, I really do sympathise: in 2004, I was quite willing to believe the faked documents purporting to detail how inadequate G.W.B.’s national guard service was, because they were entirely consonant with his character as an intelligent, self-interested, unimaginative, partying, wastrel. I don’t feel so stupid at having been taken-in because his tenure in office before and since have solidified that impression—as I’m sure Obama’s (I should hope) next seven-plus years will solidify yours of him as a Communist Nazi Foreigner-Who-Wants-Our-Women. (Me, I doubt he’ll so much as raise the tax rates or limit the military as much as did that notorious Communist Traitor, D.D. Eisenhower.)

Oct 26, 2009 - 9:32 am 281. mark:

“so-called Founders”??? That alone should tell you something.

Oct 26, 2009 - 10:42 am 282. Betty:

I agree with Delia (comments 3 & 4). I’ve thought the same thing about the motives behind Obama studying the constitutional law. I suspected it was to figure out a way to circumvent or perhaps rewrite it, so that it would be more to his liking. We’re still waiting for the “transparency” that this administration promised. He could start with a copy of his real “long form” birth certificate. I like Rush, because he’s not afraid to speak out when he sees something that is wrong. Thanks, Rush. Good job!!!

Oct 26, 2009 - 11:35 am 283. Jorge:

Nice fact checking.

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:11 pm 284. Right-Wing Media Faked Out By Bogus Obama Thesis Story | Reality Liberation Front:

[...] Media, Michael Ledeen, who is also a contributing editor for the National Review Online…took the bait, unable to resist so-called “proof” that the president held contempt for the [...]

Oct 26, 2009 - 1:57 pm 285. Politics or Entertainment « Politics Revealed:

[...] Rush Limbaugh and Michael Ledeen reported the story on the radio and in the blogosphere, it went [...]

Oct 26, 2009 - 2:41 pm 286. Paul:

It’s amazing that no one on the left even questions the fact that the government has SEALED Obama’s college transcripts from Columbia University and Harvard, sealed his Harvard Law review articles/notes, sealed his birth certificate and much more. Every president during the past 50 years has revealed his college transcripts, military record, long form birth certificate and other things as well. So, why is the left giving obama a pass? We don’t have any proof at all that he even attended Harvard or Columbia University. George Bush was raked through the coals for his “C” student status at Yale as was John Kerry when running for president. Why can’t we know what Obama’s grades are? Why can’t we have access to his Harvard Review articles and lectures? It all adds up to the question: Why is Obama getting special treatment that other presidents did not receive? It should make everyone suspicious about the legitimacy of his job as Commander-In-Chief. I would say the same thing if John McCain refused to show his transcripts and had them sealed.

The Constitution states that the president has to be a “natural born citizen” in order to hold office. In other words, a US citizen like Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT eligible for the presidency. Obama has yet to prove that he is eligible. The scary thing about this is what will happen when the courts investigate this matter early next year? What if they find him not eligible? What then? All of his executive orders will be null and void. There will be chaos and anarchy due to the great divide in our country politically.

If the courts wait too much longer and the truth comes out? We will have a civil war on our hands.

Oct 26, 2009 - 3:17 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: