When he looks back on campaign 2008, what will Obama most regret? I suspect it will the same thing John McCain most appreciated: the now-famous off-hand comment to Joe the Plumber. It’s not, said Obama, that I want to punish success. I merely want to “spread the wealth around.”
That was indeed a revelatory statement. I think it was the second most alarming thing he said in the entire campaign (more on the most alarming thing in a moment). Taken together with other observations by Obama–his almost equally infamous lament in a 2001 interview that the Supreme Court had not ventured into “issues of the redistribution of wealth,” for example–it gave the electorate a rare glimpse behind the carefully constructed “yes-we-can” façade of Obama the messianic healer into the grim “no-you-can’t” engine room of his leveling political philosophy. Let’s say that Obama was successful in overcoming what he disparaged as “essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution” on what government should be required to do to, or for, citizens; let’s say that he succeeded in transforming the Constitution from a “charter of negative liberties” into a menu of positive prescriptions: what then?
It’s my sense that more and more people are asking themselves that question. What, when you come right down to it, would an Obama administration mean for me and my family? What would it mean for the United States? What would happen after all the Greek columns were retired and Obama stepped from the hustings into the Oval Office? Political campaigns thrive on the intoxication of possibility. They end with the sobering strictures of the indicative. Compromise. Trade-offs. Competing interest groups.
It’s easy to see why Obama was (as Colin Powell put it) an “electrifying” figure. Leave aside the $650 million he raised (you can buy a lot of “electricity” for $650 million). Obama was young. He was suave. He exuded energy and confidence. He was the anti-Bush: a first-term Senator who had already distinguished himself as the most left-wing inhabitant of that august chamber. Above all, he was (at least in part) black. What better receptacle for the hopes and dreams of liberal, guilt-infatuated America? What prodigies of expiation might be accomplished were this young, charismatic, half-black apostle of egalitarian change elected President of the United States?
His comment to Joe the Plumber gave us some indication: he would set about trying to “spread the wealth around.” But redistributionist initatives do not take place in a vacuum. They unfold in a context of moral expectation. And this brings me to what may be the most alarming thing Obama let slip in the course of his campaign. I mean his suggestion, uttered in the final few days of the race, that those who do not favor higher taxes are guilty of “selfishness.” (In criticizing his tax and welfare plan, Obama said, McCain and Palin “wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”)
I know, I know: nannies through the ages have upbraided their charges with complaints about “selfishness,” an unwillingness to “share,” etc., etc. Such moralism might even be an admirable trait in a nanny. The question voters are beginning to ask themselves in earnest is whether they want a President who regards himself as a sort of super-nanny, supervising the behavior of his charges, i.e., U.S. citizens.
We know what a President as nanny-in-chief looks like, because we had one in Jimmy Carter. In 1979, Carter took to the airwaves to berate the American people for their lack of moral fiber and profligate appetite for energy. Obama echoed that rhetoric when he said, in the course of his campaign, that
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”
People sat up when they heard that: We can’t drive the sort of car we want, eh? We can’t eat as much as we like, or keep our houses at a temperature we find comfortable? We should alter our behavior to court the approval of “the rest of the world”?
That Carter-moment was soon buried in the progress of the campaign. It deserved more than the flurry of concern it elicited. It showed, just as Obama’s call for the redistribution of wealth shows, the sort of thing he intends to do to address the “selfishness” he perceives in the American people.
Remember his call for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military”? Remember his suggesting the creation of “national service” programs” that high-school and college students would be required to participate in? Those, too, were initiatives meant to combat our “selfishness.”
As I observed in this space a few weeks ago, Obama espouses a form of what James Piereson has called “punitive liberalism.” Because he regards the American people as essentially selfish (a sentiment memorably reinforced by Michelle Obama when she described the America was “just downright mean“), Obama cannot help regarding success as a form of failure. That side of Obama’s program does not play well outside his inner circle, so he has been careful to overlay it with seductive talk about “tax cuts for 95 percent of taxpayers”–an absurdity on the face of it since 43 percent of those who file do not pay any income tax at all. (Meanwhile, it is worth remembering that those reporting the top 1 percent of adjusted gross income pay nearly 40 percent of all income taxes collected, while the top 5 percent pay more than 60 percent. To use another word Obama likes, is that “fair”? How much more does want?)
“Selfishness” can be a vice. It can also be another name for that “well-ordered self-love” that Thomas Aquinas extolled as “right and natural.” (I have more to say about selfishness and altruism here.) But the important issue facing the American people at the moment is whether they wish to elect a commander-in-chief or a nanny-in-chief. Obama’s seductive rhetoric and and emollient promises have not been able to conceal his ambitions to become America’s protector and nanny-in-chief. He wants you to be happy–but on his terms. He wants to tell you what to drive, what temperature to keep your house, how much to eat. He wants to conscript your children in “voluntary” national service programs that are all-but-mandatory. He wants to determine how prosperous you will be allowed to be–and then to tax you back to a pre-determined level if you make too much. He has similar plans on the international front. He craves approval for America from the “international community, which means he will do everything he can to accommodate that community. He dislikes criticism so much, he is willing to call upon his supporters to silence journalists and besmirch the character of Joe the Plumber, using supposedly protected state information to do it.
In short, it’s your life and Obama wants to run it for you. On Tuesday, Americans will have the choice between electing a leader and a chaperone. Obama has vastly out-spent and–it saddens me to say–out-campaigned McCain. But that doesn’t mean he is better suited to lead America in this difficult time. I suspect that, in their heart of hearts, most Americans know that.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. roux:Well said…
Nov 1, 2008 - 7:55 am 2. sbtx:So it is “selfish” for individuals to believe they should have the right to spread their own wealth as they see fit, rather than trust a bloated, inefficient, mismanaged government to spread the wealth for us. A government that promises to become more bloated (and therefore, more inefficient and more mismanaged) under an Obama-Pelosi-Reid alliance.
The results of the recent bank bailout gives us some clue as to how well the government spreads taxpayers’ wealth around. Complete with bailout money the government forced on some banks that did not want it. A bailout that will be used to pay dividends, bonuses, and takeovers instead of doing what it was intended to do. Because in their rush to prove they could do something, they failed to ensure that it was done correctly.
Remember, this was a bailout brought to us by a Democratic-controlled congress and a Republican administration. A bailout approved by both Obama and McCain. (An equal opportunity offender!)
And Obama believes is it “selfishness” on our part to not want more of the same?
Nov 1, 2008 - 7:58 am 3. mistercalm:I’m hoping there aren’t a majority of Americans who are so blaise they wish to put their lives on cruise control and let a government bureaucrat take the wheel for them. I suspect there are a lot of people who erroneously believe they will benefit from an Obama presidency through no effort of their own beyond voting for him. I’m hoping there are enough rugged individualists who will act to prevent the uber-nanny from becoming President.
Nov 1, 2008 - 7:59 am 4. Barry Dauphin:At the same time he bemoans selfishness, he sets a process in motion that could disconnect people from experiencing the consequences of their choices. And that is hardly a cure for selfishness. It breeds a great deal of selfishness. If we get to the point where over 50% of income tax filers don’t pay income taxes, we’ll really get a does of what greed can look like. Selfishness expressed in certain ways can be a vice but so can covetessness.
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:13 am 5. njcommuter:That civilian force, including (presumably) everyone who wants to own a gun, under the Executive’s control and including only those people whom the Executive deems trustworthy … gee, that sounds a lot like the SS, doesn’t it?
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:31 am 6. JMH:And all those people planning to vote for Obama because he will “give” them free medical care, a job, a retirement account, etc. There’s no selfishness there, oh no.
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:46 am 7. John:I will vote for McCain– but not enthusiastically– but I am resigned that Obama is all but certain to be the next president. We could hope for the “transformative” new president to undergo a self-tranformation once immersed in the realities and imperatives and responsibilities of the Oval Office. He is intelligent enough to be self-critical, and to say to himself, “It is time to grow up. This is 2008, not 1967.” Remember, Reagan was once a Democrat, and he found his true voice on the road to Damascus… On the other hand, we could be on our way to becoming a Super-Sweden…
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:47 am 8. Percy Dovetonsils:Even if O!Messiah wins, people will be sick of his moralistic act within a year.
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:47 am 9. Thrasymachus:Spread the wealth- what does that sound like? Then I remembered- Huey Long! It would be an insult to Long to compare his record to Obama’s but the egotism and lack of respect for the law are definitely shared by the two.
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:48 am 10. Willys:So, if the ‘bama wants to redistribute my wealth what will I donate to the earthquake victims in Persia? Hun’h? Or the tsunami victims in Indonesia? Hun’h? Or fire and earthquake victims in Kali4neeya? Hun’h? Or the hurricane devastation victims just down the hiway from me? Hun’h?
I’m not selfish, just more efficient than government.
Nov 1, 2008 - 9:04 am 11. MU789:When the government actually starts eliminating programs…aw, what am I saying. They never seem to shrink the things they want to do with our money.
When NPR and PBS stop feeding at the public trough I may believe they really care about taxpayers.
Nov 1, 2008 - 9:20 am 12. Self-hating boomer:Indeed, that’s absurd on it’s face to anyone with a three digit IQ, but people with two digit IQs are allowed to vote, and to them, it’s manna from heaven: a free lunch, and punishment of the bad guys to boot.
That the McCain campaign hasn’t resoundingly debunked this nonsense may end up being why we’re all going to end up with a nanny instead of a president.
Nov 1, 2008 - 9:26 am 13. mezzrow:It seems as if Obama would like to import the New Labour nanny state to these shores. Of course, this comes with our own set of cultural grievances to be serviced. Hence, the need for a civilian “national security force” as a jobs program and a way to enforce the culture of the future. Change, indeed.
Nov 1, 2008 - 9:40 am 14. Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » The year was 2008, Obama was about to become president, and everyone was finally about to become equal…Why am I suddenly thinking so much about John Galt, Winston Smith, and Harrison Bergeron?:[...] Kimball: Commander-in-Chief vs. Nanny-in-Chief Remember his call for “a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as [...]
Nov 1, 2008 - 10:07 am 15. cfbleachers:Nanny or Commander? Maybe neither.
Stanley Kurtz, perhaps the most heroic figure in this election season and clearly one of the most important scribes of this time period, pens another piece today that may help to answer the question, Roger.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjdjY2Y2YWU5YjQ1Y2Y5Mzg0MGRlNDQ4YTkwYmI2ZDE=&w=MA==
“Even after becoming a U.S. senator, Obama has maintained his ties to the Gamaliel Foundation. According to an October 2007 report for the University of California by Todd Swanstrom and Brian Banks, “it is almost unheard of for a U.S. Senator to attend a public meeting of a community organization, but Senator Obama attended a Gamaliel affiliate public meeting in Chicago.” Given this ongoing contact, given the radicalism of Gamaliel’s core ideology, given Obama’s close association with Gamaliel’s co-founder, Gregory Galluzzo, given Obama’s role as a Gamaliel consultant and trainer, and given Obama’s outsized role in channeling allegedly “nonpartisan” funding to Gamaliel affiliates (and to his political ground troops at ACORN), some questions are in order. Obama needs to detail the nature of his ties to both Gamaliel and ACORN, and should discuss the extent of his knowledge of Gamaliel’s guiding ideology. Ultimately, we need to know if Obama is the post-ideological pragmatist he sometimes claims to be, or in fact a stealth radical.
1)We asked about the association with Frank Marshall Davis, the angry and bitter mentor with CPUSA ties, and they completely ignored us, telling us it didn’t matter.
2)We found out by ourselves, without them lifting a finger, about Jeremiah Wright and his frothing diatribes against America and Israel. When we asked them to look into this, they completely ignore us and told us it didn’t matter.
3)When Wright screeched for God to damn America, that the white man had invented AIDS to kill black people, that Louis Farrakhan was a hero and a role model, we asked them again to help us reveal items of importance, and again they ignored us and told us it didn’t matter.
4)So we looked up James M. Cone’s liberation theopolitics ourselves and found that it is based on Marxist principles, that they have threatened their deity…if their deity doesn’t hate whites, they will kill him. And we asked them to use their resources to help us understand why anyone would follow such a line of thinking and they ignored us and told us it didn’t matter.
5)Then we saw another dear friend, Michael Pfleger…acting out a bizarre minstrel show, raging against white people and their grandfathers and 401k’s. And we asked them to help us understand the attraction to such a buffoon, and they ignored us and said it didn’t matter.
6)So we trudged off to dig again on our own for when these folks became “dear friends” and “spiritual guides” and “mentors” and we found a basic history of mediocre to poor grades at Occidental College, certainly nothing of distinction or honors level…somehow translating into an acceptance at Columbia University. We asked how that could occur, given the extremely stringent entrance requirements, and they ignored us and said it didn’t matter.
7)Not only did the lack of scholarly achievement gain entrance to Columbia, it held fast throughout the stay there. There is not an ounce of record or shred of documentation that shows mere attendance, much less achievement. And yet, upon this ghost of a resume, acceptance into Harvard Law School, an institution with notoriously improbable statistics for gaining entry for those who score at the top of their class. We asked for an explanation, and we were ignored and told it didn’t matter.
8)During these Columbia years, we came to find that a co-conspirator in the mass murder of innocent Americans lived within walking distance. We also learned of some Socialist meeting halls at some Cooper place. We asked for details on all of this and we were told none would be forthcoming, because it didn’t matter.
9) This Ayers and his wife Dohrn hold such extremist radical views, they…unlike Wright, did not ask for God to damn America…they sought to embrace enemies who would incinerate it here on earth. Ayers apparently masterminded an indoctrination of schoolchildren plot, that was hidden behind stealth words and code names. He handpicked operatives to field general his master plan and we asked for help in uncovering his lifelong plan of overthrow of the government. We were told it didn’t matter, he was a “respected” professor among his fellow travelers in academia and the entrenched media…so it really, really didn’t matter.
10)One of the handpicked operatives is a guy named Michael Klonsky. This fellow was a chief blogger on the campaign welcome wagon and a Maoist who met with the Communist Chinese in an effort to prop up Maoism here at home. Klonsky, something called the New Party, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Students for a Democratic Society, the Weathermen…all seemed to overlap much like a clear plastic layout where one additonal layer adds to the picture of the last. We asked about connecting the dots with all these elements, and we were told no, go away and quit asking questions…it just doesn’t matter.
11)So, as we wondered how in the world these extremists were funded, we came upon a couple of boards of “charitable” organizations where Ayers once again popped up. Apparently millions and millions of dollars would be ground up like sausage, so as not to be recognizable and then would funnel through to various extremist ideological fronts. Apparently other board members were kept in the dark, or only served in yawning rote rubber stamp positions while this was being plotted right under their noses. Nobody knows, because nobody has aksed them…because, we are told…it didn’t matter.
12)One of the fundings went to this guy named Rashid Khalidi. He was an apologist for Arafat and a defender of suicide bombers of innocent children and women. He was feted at some dinner and they got a copy of the tape of this dinner, we asked them to see it and they said the source (perhaps Ali Abuminah, but maybe not) was more important than the truth. We said it was important to know what was on that tape and they told us our opinion doesn’t matter.
13)So Stanley Kurtz went digging for himself into how the Woods Foundation worked and the CAC was inter-related, and he went to a public university and to a public library to do the digging that they would not. And he was told that he would be refused access. We asked them to come to the aid of free speech, public access to documents, to help repel the coverup of information that is vital to our liberties as a nation. They sat on their hands and said it didn’t matter.
14)Joe the Plumber was approached at his home, seeking neither attention nor even leaving his property to invite it, and he said that the increase in taxation on certain folks sounded unfair to him. He did not a single thing more, and he was attacked viciously, not for the question, but because of a part of the answer. In fact, his privacy was invaded and illegally used as a campaign tool to continue the vicious attack. We asked that they engage in the condemnation of such vile usage of power and they sat on their hands and told us it didn’t matter.
15)Three of their brethren journalists have been eliminated from the plane as we approach the finish line, and coincidentally, all three who have been thrown off…are the ones who endorsed the opposing candidate. In asking them if that should be the future conduct as it applies to them, they sat on their hands and said it didn’t matter.
And, now…in the final days…Stanley Kurtz, Joe the Plumber, and fair minded and reasonable people everywhere are asking the last couple of questions.
Since all of the above have gone completely without a shred of investigation on your part, what if this candidate indeed shares those views of radical extremism? The methodologies of “boling the frog” one degree at a time? Perhaps it is far fetched….and yes, we anticipate your accusations of tin foil hat paranoia…but, simply answer the question. Because, you don’t know…and neither do we. You never asked the question. So, now…what if?
And the answer they gave is this…if it is true and he is already elected, by the time we find out for real…it’s not going to matter.
And for the first time, in a long time…I believed them.
Nov 1, 2008 - 10:15 am 16. mtraven:“Spreading the wealth”, what a horrible notion. Surely all the good Joes will recoil. Or perhaps they would have before the current financial crisis brought home the fact that the upper strata have been looting the country of wealth for decades, while the income of normal people has remainded flat. Maybe they will realize that their interests differ significantly from hackish pseuds in bowties.
If this country had any true political spirit left, they’d be hanging the Wall Street types from the lampposts. Probably that’s not going to happen, but it does look like they’re going to elect a funny-looking politician with an exotic background who promises mildly more progressive tax rates.
Here’s some interesting data about US wealth distribution. For one thing, it’s drastically less egalitarian than any other developed country. Here’s another cute visualization of where ordinary people stand in relation to great wealth. Here’s another graph showing how income inequality has been increasing with time.
Here’s a simple truth: wealth gets spread around all the time. How it’s spread is a product of economic realities and government policy. Our past policies have distributed it upward; spreading some of it downward is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. In fact, it’s the economically wise thing to do; if we continue down the path of impoverishing the middle and working classes, the eventual result will be converting the US economy to that of a third-world kleptocracy. Our education and health outcomes are already alarmingly down that path.
Meanwhile, Obama has been endorsed by Nature, and here’s a physicist registering his opinion:
I mention this because it’s clear that anybody who puts any value at all on the intellect has to come down in the Obama camp. McCain knows nothing and cares nothing for the realities of the world, and Palin is worse. We’ve had eight years of Republican postmodernism; it’s time to put the reality-based community back in charge.
Nov 1, 2008 - 1:25 pm 17. skipbest:wow.. a canucklehead from Victoria BC[yes the northern left coast] lights up with joy….this article suggests that the rubber has finally met the road in the USA
i’ve been waiting for this recognition of the cliff all of you are fast approaching and that your country is about to unceremoniously disemble…..i hope you are not to late to stop it!!!
we,in Canada experienced communism-lite , a nasty form of Marxist socialist rule in the Trudeau years…we ended up demoralized and feds up… a decade later ,we are still attempting to regain our sea legs, …DON”T GO THERE
Nov 1, 2008 - 1:48 pm 18. dragonfly:cfbleachers: Great! What a complete and devestating run-down of what not just the MSM but the entire conservative punditry were ignoring, treating Obama like a “left-leaning liberal” for all those wasted months! Just starting to “get it” in he last few days of campaigning.
The most frightening thing to me is the “civilian Security force”, government salaried, not volunteer, with a budget equal to the military. He’s proposing a government policy reinforcement organization, Maoist style. Will they w ear brown shirts? But nobody on the conservative side, NOBODY, picked up on it as an issue. McCain never challenged him on it. Palin doesn’t mention it. Obama sure as hell hasn’t talked about it again. It just doesn’t matter.
Obama has said repeatedly: “They are going to try to make you fear me!”. The VOP has tried hard to disappoint him. And America may have to pay the price of their passivity in the face of a mortal threat.
Nov 1, 2008 - 1:54 pm 19. Chris:What a great piece, but oh… why this line right at the end?
“On Tuesday, Americans will have the choice between electing a leader and a chaperone.”
No, no, no. Americans — if they’re AMERICANS — don’t need a chaperone OR a “leader.” Do you need to be “led”? Who needs to be “led”? We’re Americans: we’re individuals, sovereign in ourselves. Words such as “leader” cede the very premise of the thing to the left, and hands it the philosophical victory. That’s THEIR language. That’s THEIR worldview. It’s not ours.
Americans don’t need a chaperone, and they don’t need a leader. They simply have to elect a president — a fellow citizen who is supposed to sit up in Washington and not do much and stay the hell out of the other citizens’ way.
Nov 1, 2008 - 6:08 pm 20. Cienfuegos:In Cuba, we had a name for what Barrack Obama wants to be: Fidel.
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:15 pm 21. Lupo:“Meanwhile, Obama has been endorsed by Nature, and here’s a physicist registering his opinion…”
I’m a physicist, and I’m registering my opinion. Obama’s intellectual posturings (he has no intellectual output), if they signify anything beyond clever marketing, are a bad sign. Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover were our last two truly intellectual presidents: bad for the nation and the world by most measures. Academics are bad at making quick decisions. That’s why you’re better off hiring the fellow who played football to trade a portfolio than the guy with a Ph.D. in math. Even though the football orc is “dumber” at mathematics, he’ll make a decision; and really, spatial reasoning is pretty general and useful. One of the greatest American presidents of the 20th century was an ignorant haberdasher whose education came from reading an encylopedia, but he knew right from wrong, and he knew how to make a choice. Does Obama?
Clowns like yourself have been attempting the Mel Brooks “Don’t be a dummy, be a smarty; join up with the Dumbocratic party” for years now. It’s a smashing success with intellectually insecure nitwits who think Richard Dawkins is a scientist, or that being an Atheist makes you more clever than Robert Griffiths. It doesn’t work so well on people who have a few brain cells to rub together. I can assure you, sir, my Ph.D. is much larger than yours, and I’m voting for the fighter pilot rather than the empty suit with the thoughtful pipe smoking pose.
Nov 1, 2008 - 8:54 pm 22. cfbleachers:From a blog called the Virginian (which I found through looking at Protein Wisdom which linked to it)
Let’s see, his original birth certificate is sealed. His Columbia transcripts are not available. Bill Ayers is just a guy in his neighborhood, but turns out to be more than that. His videotaped tribute to Rashid Khalidi is hidden by the LA Times. He attends his church for 20 years but does not remember ever hearing any racist hate speech coming out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth. Who is this mystery man that so many people are going to be voting for next week?
Unkosified at FreeRepublic has a longer list:
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. Record of baptism— Not released or ‘not available’
14. Illinois State Senate records—’not available’
A comment by someone named “carly” also stated the following:
He may have attended/gotten a degree from the Columbia School of General Studies which is part of the University but not prestigious; it’s open to anyone/everyone. Few graduates of SGS go on to Harvard Law, though some get degrees; but with “life experience” that path would certainly be possible, even for a person not politically connected or “owned” by radicals.
What’s ODD (if this explanation is true) is that Barry is ashamed of it. Why? It seems like this scenario would bolster his claim to having “overcome difficult circumstances”–much more so than having magically attended a ritzy private school, Columbia College and HLS.
I don’t know if this is true or possible, but if it is, nobody in tne entrenched media seems to want to ask, because, they say it doesn’t matter
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. Record of baptism— Not released or ‘not available’
14. Illinois State Senate records—’not available’
Nov 2, 2008 - 6:00 am 23. cfbleachers:http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaEducation.htm
Very thorough examination of just the questions raised relating to EDUCATION, not much else. (although I found, for the first time, that Pajamas Media had found out about the Selective Service application, so we can cross that off the list, I imagine, of things that have not been found…albeit, I’m still unclear why it was never released, or if there is something to investigate further there)
See also, the following article from zombie:
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_and_the_weather_underground/
Journalistic frustration: The media hits a blank wall about Obama’s New York years
Many articles have already been published on this very topic: How Obama refuses to say much of anything about his time at Columbia, and how what little he has said contradicts other sources. In researching this article I had the exact same experience, and I’ll present some of my findings below, but first let’s take a quick look at what others have said.
The New York Times most famously published an article in 2007 entitled “Obama’s Account of New York Years Often Differs From What Others Say,” which points out a great many inconsistencies in Obama’s meager testimony about his Columbia stint. He has portrayed himself then as having been solitary, studious, hard-working, and impoverished while at Columbia, but the Times notes with frustration,
Yet he declined repeated requests to talk about his New York years, release his Columbia transcript or identify even a single fellow student, co-worker, roommate or friend from those years. … His 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” weighs in at more than 450 pages. But he also exercised his writer’s prerogative to decide what to include or leave out. Now, as he presents himself to voters, a look at his years in New York – other people’s accounts and his own – suggests not only what he was like back then but how he chooses to be seen now. Some say he has taken some literary license in the telling of his story.
“Taken some literary license” is a nice way of saying: Lied. The Times then goes on to demonstrate many inconsistencies in Obama’s version of events.
The New York Observer points out that nobody on campus even remembers Obama being there at the time. Not one person.
Riehl World View concurs, and adds more puzzling details — or rather, absence of details.
The article about Obama at WikiCU, the online Columbia encyclopedia, even expresses mystification about their own alumnus. In what should be a definitive article about his years there, the encyclopedia says things like…
Obama claims to have participated to some extent in anti-apartheid activities with the Black Students Organization, but no one is quite sure.
…
He majored in PoliSci, and claims to have concentrated in “International Relations”…
…
Sources first differed on whether he wrote his senior thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament or the North-South debate on trade and the “new international economic order”. Later, it emerged that he had not really written an official thesis at all…
…
It has been reported that Obama graduated without honors…
…and so forth. If the people at Columbia themselves seem to be so unsure about Obama’s time there, how can an outside journalist expect to find the truth?
While researching this article, I encountered the same blank wall as the journalists who came before me. And whenever I did dig up a fact, it only contradicted Obama’s own claims. The following sections illustrate some of these contradictions, and are only presented here for one reason: To show that Obama has never told the truth or the full story about his time at Columbia.
Nov 2, 2008 - 6:49 am 24. cfbleachers:Zombie then gives the following links, which, if you read each of them in order to try to piece together what is true, from what is speculative…leaves one with a ton of questions…and can’t help but make a reasonable person wonder. What is hiding behind the Grass Curtain?
Bonus Links
“In this essay I have striven to only make factual assertions. The following links are more speculative in nature, and are only provided here as an addendum, possibly to spur further research. Let’s just file these under: Food for thought.
This article at the American Thinker also finds Obama’s claims to know nothing of Ayers and the Weather Undergound to be highly dubious, considering the close parallels in Ayers’ and Obama’s ideological and geographical journeys.
Human Events magazine published an article called Obama’s Plumbers, alleging that the Obama campaign has a secret squad that has been running around trying to expunge or suppress any damning evidence from Obama’s past. After my experiences researching this essay, I tend to lend it some credence.
This essay was originally inspired by this posting on the Just One Minute blog.
This posting at The Motley Fool points out a few more intriguing coincidences and suggests several additional avenues of investigation regarding Obama’s time at Columbia.
This completely unattributed and unproven comment at the New York Sun speculates that Obama may have possibly even lived with William Ayers for a brief period — a bizarre theory which can never even be investigated due to the absence of any evidence (we don’t know where Ayers lived during this time).
This wild and woolly post by private investigator Bill Warner tracks down some of the same Obama/Ayers connections that are detailed in this essay, with added literary flair.
The book Far Left of Center contains a detailed and reliable history of the Weather Underground, its members, and various splinter groups.
An eye-opening article on the “Pakistaniat” site details Obama’s numerous and little-known connections to Pakistan.
“The Obama File” site has an amazing run-down of Obama’s educational history with many verified jaw-dropping details found almost nowhere else.”
Nov 2, 2008 - 6:53 am 25. cfbleachers:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9E8CD8A7-E90B-4311-8AA9-AEFD014A14B2
A story of William Ayers by a woman named Donna Ron, who details an allegation that Ayers…forcibly locked her in a room and chained the door…and now he doesn’t remember her.
Just to get a bit more flavor of this “respected” man in academia.
Nov 2, 2008 - 7:19 am 26. Commentary » Blog Archive » Flotsam and Jetsam:[...] Nanny-in-chief? So says Roger Kimball. [...]
Nov 2, 2008 - 7:47 am 27. cfbleachers:What does all this mean? I simply can’t piece together an answer that doesn’t give rise to more questions.
I don’t know what to believe, other than to say…I’m not convinced of anything I’m being told and am growing ever more suspicious of what I am not being told, what is being hidden and Left handed Monkey Wrench that the Plumbers are using on the truth.
Massive voter registration fraud, massive campaign financing…with serious and dangerous circumvention of safeguards?
Repeated, consistent and haunting connections with some of the most virulent haters of America, it’s salt of the earth small town folks and “flyover country” residents, a frontal assault on the Constitution, a “spread thw wealth” economic distribution plan, an open suggestion that a “fairness doctrine” be imposed to shut down talk radio, an outline to drastically curtail the military budget and reduce our ability to defend militarily against foreign enemies, replacing that role instead with a “private army not constrained by oversight of the military…instead reporting directly to the civilian Commander.
Drown out opposing or dissenting voices? Kick them off the plane and shut them down on the airwaves? Take the property of the dissenters and give it to the loyal party workers? Indoctrinate schoolchildre and have them chant slogans? Paramilitary exercises and “calls to action”, orders to “get in their faces” and browbeat your own parents and grandparents?
The media suddenly and almost completely consumed by a lack of curiousity, ceases to defend “the little guy”…but instead attacks them with a ferocity heretofore reserved for national politicians. They goosestep their way to salute the private seal, the absence of the flag, the Che Guevara poster.
Let me summarize:
1)Strip the military of funding and reduce its manpower and ability to defend
2)Strip the access of dissenters by kicking them off the plane, refusing access via the airwaves if they ask tough questions, institute a “fairness doctrine” to eliminate their voice on radio.
3)Strip the capital and property and begin to redistribute those funds and property
4)Attack the constitution, insert judges not elected by the people as operatives in redrafting it to suit the policies and procedures which the people never voted to approve.
5)Build a civilian army of loyal party members, in a new revolutionary guard against enemies…whomever they may be.
6)Take away the 2nd amendment rights of the people, by force, if necessary…because they “cling to guns and religion”. Not sure if religion is going to be allowed to “cling” to at this point.
7)Replace traditional symbols with new ones…the flag is the “wrong” kind of patriotism…personal seals, wall sized portraits, a personal flag.
8)Nationalized healthcare, nationalized banking and finance, nationalized insurance, nationalized 401k’s, nationalized homeownership, nationalized energy, nationalized education, nationalized agriculture and food production.
9)Elections rife with voter registration fraud and political operatives blocking investigation into the massive, overt and clear attempts to rig an election for one candidate with ties to the offending organizations.
10) Massive evidence of campaign finance irregularities, foreign influence and laundered money, in order to buy more votes.
11) Louder and more vicious attacks on Jewish people popping up as a “gutter religion”, the “cause of massive suffering”, the “reason there is no peace”. A team is assembled to “reduce the Zionist influence”.
If I was going to start a revolution…I certainly couldn’t pick a better groundwork or foundation than this. I would only ask that you call me an agrarian reformer….although I suppose “community organizer” would work just as well.
I would do the organizing…it’s up to you to do the communing. I would ask you to simply quietly come along, join the “grassroots” movement for “change” and “hope” for our future…built in five year planning increments. Then a Grass Curtain would descend upon you, keeping you safe from those who dissent.
I mean…if I intended to launch a revolution. Which I don’t. I’m a centrist. How about you?
Nov 2, 2008 - 8:20 am 28. Kathy:Go to utube and type in “Obama paramilitary”-watch it and tell all of your aquaintances to do likewise. I’m so afraid that all Americans will pay for the ignorance of the left.
Nov 2, 2008 - 10:36 am 29. mtraven:@Lupo: make up your mind, you are attacking Obama both for being academic and not being academic.
We’ve all seen what damage a dumb “decider” can do in high office. I think people are looking for someone with a little more thoughtfulness. I find it hard to imagine being a physicist who prefers to be ruled by dumb jocks with executive asshole skills, but whatever. You probably got a nice stiffie when Bush paraded around with his manly characteristic emphasized.
Don’t know where your riff on Dawkins is coming from; if you read my blog you’ll see that I’m mostly opposed to his simpleminded atheism. He was, in fact, a real scientist who did work on zoology and kin selection before taking on his current role as scourge of religion.
McCain was a singularly incompetent pilot who crashed numerous planes and may have started a fire on the USS Forrestal that killed over 100 sailors. His poor judgement, evidenced by his selection of Palin, seems to go back a long way.
Nov 2, 2008 - 12:04 pm 30. Mark Woodworth:If we allow the question to be framed as selfishness vs. spreading the wealth, we have already lost. The follow up to Sen. Obama on his comment to Joe the Plumber should have been, “yes, Senator, spreading the wealth is good. But what did you think I was going to do with the money I kept? I would invest it in my neighbors, I would purchase goods and services from them, and I would likely give to charity. The case you need to make, Senator, is that the clumsy apparatus of the Federal government is better than I am at doing those things with my money.”
My uncharitable view is that those most dismissive of the benefits of leaving people their own money are projecting their own covetousness on others. They believe that people will not do good things with their own money because they wouldn’t. Compare the charitable giving of Joe Biden vs. Dick Cheney (who gave something like 4 million to charity out of 6 million in income.)
Or maybe they so misunderstand charity that they feel the spiritual benefits of sacrifice can be obtained by forcing someone else to sacrifice in their place.
P. J. O’Rourke once calculated that the sum of Federal assistance to the poor, divided by a generous estimate of the number of poor, would result in an annual amount of income over the poverty line. That are are still poor people is not an indication that we are downright mean, but that poverty programs are much more about funding government employees than alleviating poverty.
Nov 2, 2008 - 3:05 pm 31. FONTANELLE:Rome fell because of language.
It all comes down to reading, writing and listening.
People below thirty, on the whole, can’t read. They won’t learn the difference between the active and passive voice in their lifetimes, and they won’t pick up Barthelme, Faulkner, Morrison, Goethe, Kafka, Dostoevsky, and goddamn read. They’re a huge voter demographic.
Why did Rome fall? Failure of Language. It’s happening people. It’s happening. Cormac McCarthy wrote a great book about what happens when stupidity endures. The Road. Read it. It’s seven dollars when you walk out of your office at the borders on the corner.
You want the right change? Educate.
Nov 3, 2008 - 2:27 am 32. Lupo:“I find it hard to imagine being a physicist ”
Yes, I can certainly believe that.
Your regurgitations of Daily Kos talking points against Mr. McCain are as unoriginal and tedious as your crude sexual insults against me. You display the intellectual elan of a chimpanzee making threat displays. It might go over well with your fellow morons, high-fiving each other and assuring yourselves of what clever apes you are, but it just makes you look like more of a boob to me.
Nov 4, 2008 - 3:47 pm 33. Roger’s Rules » “Acts of Retribution: There will be Blood”: Obama’s New Bestseller:[...] before the election, I wrote in this space about Obama, selfishness, and liberal guilt. “What prodigies of expiation,” I asked back in those halcyon days, “might be [...]
Mar 12, 2009 - 5:39 am 34. Roger’s Rules » David Axelrod’s bewilderment: you can help!:[...] told you all along what I was going to do.” And he did. Remember his promise to “spread the wealth around“? That would be your wealth, mon [...]
Apr 20, 2009 - 6:42 am 35. Roger’s Rules » Job Opening at the White House.:[...] is big on “mandatory” volunteerism and I am happy to do a stint here volunteering as an unpaid human resource consultant to the White [...]
May 3, 2009 - 4:43 am 36. Roger’s Rules » The Potemkin Presidency meets a moment of sanity in The New York Times (with an observation from Hilaire Belloc and an admonition from Friedrich Hayek):[...] They came to the job with an agressive left-wing agenda that set out (as Obama put it just before the election) “to fundamentally transform the United States of America.” He was going to remake the country top-to-bottom: health care, the environment, foreign policy, immigration policy, the redistribution of wealth and evening out of income (“spreading the wealth around”). [...]
Jun 29, 2009 - 6:59 am