Time reporter Joe Klein apparently obtained the first 10 pages of Barack Obama's thesis entitled "Aristocracy Reborn" while he was at Columbia University. Among other things In Obama's paper apparently he made this criticism of the Constitution:
“… 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.”
Several questions come to mind:
1) Where does a supposedly educated man and Senior at Columbia get off calling the Nations' early leaders the "so called Founders"? Is this the kind of education one gets at Columbia (as evidenced by the score of A- which the young Obama supposedly received)?
2) Does Obama agree with these statements today?
3) When will he release the entire 44-page thesis? What about the release of later thesis papers from Graduate school and Law school? If not, why not?
4) Why hasn't the media shown any interest in this topic and the apparent willingness of our President to apply what he thinks the Constitution 'should' say rather than what it actually says?
5) What does he think about Karl Marx and Chairman Mao (especially in light of the statements of several of his close advisors in the White House)?
One thing is very clear and requires no questions. The release of this document (and any subsequent questions about it) during the campaign might well have impacted Obama's candidacy. It's easy to see why he held it back. Only thing is, that wasn't very honest and transparent was it?
See also:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-college-thesis-constitution-is.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/obamas_columbia_thesis_excerpt.html
http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/10/21/obama-and-the-constitution-he-has-his-doubts/
*** A personal note:
Soon after I published this article some info came to light indicating that Joe Klein had not gotten Obama's thesis and claims about it's contents were false and in fact a hoax. I addressed this in my first comment where I pointed out that extremely similar statements WERE made by Obama in 2001. In that link and other comments to to this article I point out that Obama has made numerous anti-Constitutional comments and others in support of wealth redistribution as a policy to be sought after. Many Americans (of both political stripes) disagree with this approach and the topic is worthy of discussion regardless of whether his thesis addresses it or not. I point out in other comments that despite the hoax nature of the thesis story four of my five original questions remain valid.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 138 ( 13 removed by Ken S. )
Nope, as a group they approve of Obama's move. Fox is a competitor and this is an area that neither Obama nor the press wants "choice and competition"
I believe one of the links above mentions that it is part of an upcoming TIME article.
I had written an article back during the campaign linking to several audio tapes from Obama (in 2001) where he said similar anti-Constitutional stuff.
see
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977492849
Soon after I published this article some info came to light indicating that Joe Klein had not gotten Obama's thesis and claims about it's contents were false and in fact a hoax. I addressed this in my first comment (above) where I pointed out that extremely similar statements WERE made by Obama in 2001. In that link and other comments to to this article I point out that Obama has made numerous anti-Constitutional comments and others in support of wealth redistribution as a policy to be sought after. Many Americans (of both political stripes) disagree with this approach and the topic is worthy of discussion regardless of whether his thesis addresses it or not. I pointed out in other comments that despite the hoax nature of the thesis story four of my five original questions remain valid.
Despite this, a fellow blogger (David K.) felt the need to respond in a childish and juvenile fashion by essentially repeating his above comment 19 separate times in comments to this article alone. This behaviour reminds one of a child who spitefully pushes all the floor buttons on the elevator just because he can or one that closes his ears and eyes and incessantly repeats naa-naa-naa until his opponent goes away.
Anyone can repeat a point 2 or or even three times in order to stress it but to do so 19 times is ridiculous. I am all for spirited debate but to clog up someone else's blog space with the same comment repeated nearly 20 times shouldn't be viewed as acceptable by anyone as it confuses readers and makes the discussion unnecessarily difficult to follow. Based on the above, I have deleted the redundant comments.
As for your comments, saying virtually the same thing 19 times is at least inefficient (in addition to being redundant). Perhaps you should apply for a government job where such skills are held in high regard.
The article in its entirety IS about the thesis paper. So you admit that this entire article is based on a hoax. And yet you continue to present it as if it was true. Explain to us all how being dishonest is not actually dishonest.
but the President's disdain for the Constitution and for property rights is not.
You've presented zero evidence of this ridiculous assertion, and given your admitted dishonesty, why should anyone listen to anything you have to say from now on?
Now you do like I says and go to college and someday you'll be president of dis United States, you mark my words. I tell about the time the Chicago police kill Black panther Fred Hampton, shot em right there in his bed.
Oh, that's another story for another day. Can you dig it, I can.
Frankly, I find it a refreshing change of pace to hear of someone in power that is not afraid to mention that wealth is still at the upper end of the spectrum of life in this society. Just because someone talks about it doesn't even mean that he will or wants a change in the system. I think the President has a sense of humor.
Don't forget old Dan R likes the buzzwords. I am surprised that he hasn't tried to bring in the usual conspiracy theories. Dan R, what do you propose that is positive?
Nothing about Obama has been up front, and he has lied about most of his views.
Richard did look over the facts, which you clearly did not because the facts document that this whole article was a hoax.
It's a shame that you choose to be dishonest about it. Credibility matters.
So what facts did Richarde look at? His comic book?
As if any one of you detractors and fatalists could own America! Silly,silly boys!
Yes, David they do seem to deny intellect, unless they find it in one of their own...it is a theme of theirs to attack what they lack and in a package they do not approve of.
"Marxist"! To have a POTUS who embraces other cultures and respects humans MUST be "Marxist"? That says so much about the Right, and it is not pretty.
Hate rears its ugly head in the questions they ask and answer themselves--now that is informing!
Richard, They do get their ire up when the lies they have told begin to surface. Oh, the pains of the inconvenient truths--so they vilify the new guy! Deflection, that is what they are up to, deflection.
Intelligence - Nancy Pelosi
Marxists (in the administration) - Van Jone (was), WH Communication Director Anita Dunn reveres Chairman Mao, and that FCC guy who really likes the Hugo Chavez' revolution and control of the media, just to name a few. And you want the President to 'respect ' other cultures more than his own?
Hate - comments against tea party attendees, Congressional town hall attendees, ex-military, Christians, etc. etc.
Johnice/David/Richard, If you want to attack and spread garbage, please do it elsewhere.
That is some right-wing hallucinogen you are on…
Your mental masturbation does not impress me!
I cannot imagine anyone taking you seriously!
Oh don't forget read this comment too, and correct any mistakes you find. I really appreciate your effort on my behalf Linda W., your just so smart and all to compassionate a person.
Ya don't suppose they might have earned it, do ya?
And your'e afraid of a few liberals. Boo!!
Linda W. ever here of Las Vegas, oh I mean Wall St.
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! ... Rick: Yeah, it's pretty bad timing. Where were you, say, ten years ago? ...
Nothing is free.
It really gets to be pretty pathetic sometimes, watching the conservatives grasp at every straw they can in order to attack and discredit a president they don't like.
Absolute fake blather, and you fell for it because you don't give a damn about honesty, you just want to slander the President.
This story is fake and falls apart under the slightest scrutiny. Corrections and apologies are due from Ledeen, Limbaugh, and Fox Nation, but if you believe you'll get an apology from pathological liars of that sort, then you're more gullible than they are.
But hey, why speculate on whether it's true or not? Let's go to the source. Mr. 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."
Is it any wonder that the Republican party is populated by dishonest morons.
Pathetic
Obama said very similar words on the audio links I included above. Try listening to them before breaking out the insult gun.
There may be hope! Nah, I doubt it!
Don't be closed-minded and reject the suggestion just because I am the messenger.
All sorts of rightwingnuts were calling him a Commie.
You let that Ni**** rule So. Africa and he will wipe out all white Afrikaners and turn So. Africa into a Marxist state.
Yeah, it's a commie state alright. What I disagree with Mandella is the Truth and reconcile commision which pardoned the whites who murdered blacks.
Oh and lets not forget that other black commie Martin Luther King.
(Don't you love it)
The fear in their eyes as they tremble and the urinate upon themselve, a small puddle between their legs starts to form.
(Oh this is great, love it).
They bring out their old warrior chief, righthand man and second to the now defeated and scorned from the Land Texas of Crawford, the once King of all the land, G.W. Bush the II.
Now outside the White Castle walls, the Dick of Cheney can only yell and incite the mad tribe and klan folk the stand behind him. In a vain attemp to do battle againist the young hansome black prince, who sits upright and tall upon his black stallon.
The villagers form behind the old warrior with signs and placards that denounce the new black King of all the land. The old warrior, rises his battle club and the cheer of the villagers mumble their questionalbe support for the old warrior. Unsure it appear if he can engage in battle with the young black king.
So to all who happen upon this tell of war and mayhem. There is more yet to be written.
Until then, let it be know, the cry was heard across the land. Let the game began.
Clever diatribe but more importantly one that holds to the single Liberal rule that cannot be violated. Never actually engage on an issue, just attack personalities.
Even if the Klein info is incorrect or premature 4 of my 5 questions still hold. Obama DID say similar things in 2001 on Chicago radio. He DOES have radicals in his administration behind every door. He HASN"T released this thesis documents. It's not a game.
This is America if you haven't forgotten and freedom of thought is inherent in being an American, tolerance is the second. Your free to spread, worry about and nash your teeth, till then if you like, protest with the rest of FauxNews Tea Baggers and corporate backers.
Write letters or whatever you think you need to do. But if you think for moment your cause will suceed base on misleading falsehood like the last cowboy in office, it won't happen.
Free enterprise, I'm all for it, lower taxes sure, ect. ect. But under fair regulations and control. Supported by the people and during the last general election, the majority of the American people have spoken. President Barack H. Obama is Commander and Chief of these United States of America. And he is, taken care of business.
So see ya in 2012 when we do all over again and leave you to the dust bin of history. On the sidelines, where the right-wing and you belong.
Furthermore, "He don't have to show you no sinking badges." I mean thesis, whatever. checkmate!!!
Rep. Charlie Rangle, ACORN have accusations, and conjectures, until, and only until they, are or anyone else recieve a proper investigation and evidence presented before their peers, or a legal body of authority, the liberal too are innocent before the Law. Now if we are to throw out lies and talk about wrong doing, let's review military contractors and their billion of ill gotten monetary gains. Who I might add after being being caught red handed and prosecuted are given another contract, again and again.
There is enough criminal activity and wrong doing by all who feed at the government trough to fill this page.
I will not go down that road. However, to throw out commie this, marxist this or that, it's the same old wash-up right wing mumbo jumbo. And it don't change a thing, and it really matters not. Freedom of thought and action is permitted here in this land.
It is a sign of weakness, their falsehoods, and mindless lying to score points with there base. But there you have it, loser the lot of them.
Last week he was Hitler.
Whatever scares them I guess.
These are some sick individuals.
America has been very, very good to me, invested a little into stock as soon as President Obama assumed office. Times are tough for many, but it sure could be worse. Otherwise, "have a nice day, but I'll be back."
Obama's similar comments made in a 2001 Chicago radio interview are NOT fake. Listen to them (although I admit that requires effort, effort that you are probably not likely to expend when it is easier to just attack somebody). It is a not a fabrication that he and his 'team' are willing to pursue unconstitutional measures (and to ignore other 'rules') without hesitation (Health Care reform, Cap-and-trade sacrifice of US sovereignty, controlling private company salaries, hate crimes legislation, Cass Sunstein wants foreign law to be used in interpreting the US Constitution, the ability to simply shutdown the internet for undefined reasons, insurance company gag-orders because they don't support the Pres, executive branch attempts to decertify Fox as a news organization). All Un-Constitutional, not that you care.
That he implicitly and explicitly supports wealth distribution efforts is well known (he told Joe the Plumber that very thing, for instance). These are real issues which you and the media will largely ignore.
As I mentioned he will not release his thesis papers. Why not? There is nothing in them that would possibly cause you and many Obamabots to withdraw their worshipful support from the "Pied-Piper of Chicago".
What's pathetic is the left's unwillingness to even care about misuse of government power from this administration.
Which nasty names exactly are you accusing me of using?
Again, do you read before commenting George? How many times does one post have to include the links before you finally read it? How many times does something have to be proven a hoax before you admit it? How dishonest are you George, really? No, I'm serious. How dishonest are you?
Try reading, George.
Just in case you can't figure it out...here is the link here, and here, and here, and here.
Did you get it yet, George?
Gee, George, the guy who the article claimed had his hands on this mysterious SECOND thesis says he NEVER had such a thing. The authors of the original article say is was satire. There are no facts supporting it. All of the facts prove it is a hoax, it is admitted as a hoax, and no one honest could possibly believe it as anything other than a hoax, given that it is a hoax.
Keep trying, George. There might be one or two people who don't know your history of dishonesty here on Gather.
Pathetic.
Don't like it much when the shoe is on the other foot do you David?
Yes, your history of dishonesty. It's been documented, George, so the playing dumb routine doesn't work.
You are the one spreading lies about a number of things.
Name one. You can't. See, you're being dishonest again.
Now you can't take it when someone calls you on your false information and quotations from Democratic Propaganda rags.
So, the authors admitting it was a hoax is "false information?" No wonder your logic makes no sense.
You have not proved your contention David.
The authors calling it a hoax is pretty good proof for anyone with intelligence, George. Maybe you can have someone explain facts to you.
All I ask for is proof, reliable proof from a reliable source.
So the original creator of the hoax admitting it was a hoax is not "reliable proof" in your fantasy world?
What a putz.
Where is your link that the creator of this preseent discussion admitted it was a hoax? Or is that another of your maked up stories?
George - do you read anything before leaving comments?
Obama's anti-Constitutional statements are true and I link to them above. I'll accept that Klein doesn't have it (although a link to that effect would be nice to see). Be that as it may, four of the five questions in the article remain valid. What say you?
As dishonest as Ken?
Or as dishonest as the Republican party has decided it will be?
Unless you think that the authors of the article saying it was satire are lying. Or the guy who the article claims had a copy of this SECOND thesis and says he never had any such thing is lying about it. Or the magazine that the article says was preparing a story on it but says they don't have a clue what the hell the article is talking about is lying about that.
Pathetic. And you wonder why no one listens to you.
Even the return to the rates before we had the tax breaks to the wealthy has not been achieved. Do you fear his policies that temper Bush's bailouts that had no strings attached?
"In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench."
--McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin
With just over a week to go until the election, the McCain campaign is stepping up its efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet "socialist" bent on implementing a major redistribution of wealth in American society. The Illinois Democrat's remarks to "Joe the Plumber" on "spreading the wealth around" are Exhibit A in the Son of Karl Marx argument. Exhibit B is a newly-discovered interview that Obama gave to a Chicago public radio station back in 2001 in which he mentioned the R-word several times in a generally positive context.
Did Obama really say what the McCain camp says he said?
The Facts
"Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News. "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."
On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.
You can read the entire transcript of the interview here, courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:
Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.
In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:
One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.
Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."
While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes."
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_redistribution_bombshel.html
What is more important than how he wants to accomplish wealth redistribution is the fact that since he does want to accomplish it (legislatively, in the courts, or via community organizing to build the power structures to bring it about), he is in effect discounting the importance of private property rights to the stability, prosperity, and standard of living of the nation. This is a dangerous and unprecedented position never before held by the occupant of the White House (except for maybe Woodrow Wilson). As such it deserves some attention, especially when it is coupled with administration actions that reflects those ends.
Here is the 4 miniute audio link of Obam's 2001 comments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Get off of the drugs Kenny; they are stunting your mental development!
The fact of the matter is that there has been wealth redistribution going in the US at least since the progressive income tax was instituted. During the bush administration, money was shifted from the middle class to the rich. bush redistributed wealth. The right is always coming up with ways to steal from the middle class. It's time to get that money back to the people that deserve it and save the middle class from destruction. they've been stealing from us for far too long.
The answer to your tiresome rant is smaller, more limited government (less bribery opportunities), more services at the state level (closer to and more accountable to voters), more accountability of elected officials (I wrote an article last week on this), and lastly more antitrust actions (like with Standard Oil) to address the "too big to fail" garbage.
Local and state governments do some things better than the federal government and I support them doing those things. But state and local government isn't going to be able to take on the Standard Oils of the world.
Of course state and local governments can't take on mergers and anti-trust actions. So you agree with the rest of my prescription then?
Do I agree with the rest of your prescription? Probably not. For instance, take your idea that the more local the government the less likely there will be corruption. I live in New Jersey, a state famous for corruption. One of the major reasons there is so much corruption here is that there are about 600 municipalities and many of the tin horn mayors and councilpeople in the state are on the take. Think about a major developer, for example. He comes into town and can buy off the governing body or enough of the members of the governing body to get development rights that an honest governing body would never hand out so freely. So, we have tons of corruption here precisely because we have so many little governments.
To me this means taking the trouble of putting the right function at the right level of government and then watching the officials responsible. Sure, it takes work but that's the 'fatigue' that Paine is talking about. It is a large error (and elicits large corruption to put large programs in a single place without an adult focus on oversight. The government health care bill, built as it would be, on the fraud-prone Medicare system will invite more corruption. It's harder to bribe 1000 officials than it is to bribe just one.
All they have is LIES and distortions!
Have to file this along with trained at a Madrassa, terrorist, Muslim, and there was even a psycho here on Gather who compared him to Lucifer.
I know,I know.. We don't hate him cuz he's black, we hate him cuz he's a foreigner from Africa.
This isn't about ideology or opinion. This is about honesty.
All just balderdash!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/obamas_columbia_thesis_excerpt.html
Your own source has printed a correction stating that the story may be false because of inadequate sources.
Please.
You know George sold what little was left of his integrity for a Home Depot gift card, and Ken never had any.
It doesn't matter that the thesis is a hoax, they'll defend it anyway.
That's typically tired, unrelated to the topic at hand, and simply a cut at President Bush for the sheer joy of it. Hope it was good for you. The Democrats are telling the country (along with the compliant media) that the government can spend our way out of the recession (it can't), that government-run health care won't have the effect of eliminating your choice in the matter (it most certainly will), and that the president doesn't want to control auto companies/banks/salaries/light bulbs/ car sizes/insurance plans etc.etc.etc when he obviously does. And to top it off he believes the Constitution is flawed. great.
I also think that if any of Obama's early papers had been released he would have never won the presidency. And I'm certain that's why he did not.
I agree that he believes in wealth distribution. So did Raygun and bush and they acted on those beliefs.
Yet he doesn't. He doesn't even have sufficient respect for it to explain to all us stupid 'red-state'ers what the Constitutional Authority is for all all of his kaka socialist schemes. With his training, he should be able to do that in his sleep yet he ventures nowhere near such a discussion (aided of course by refusing to talk to any reported that might actually ask such a question).
It's a shame more Republicans can't be honest. This is a hoax, has been admitted as a hoax, and always was absolutely fake. But Ken continues to play along like it is real, even though he knows it is fake. That's called dishonesty.
Good one.