Paper Written by Obama in 1983 Proves He is a Lefturd Commie Radical

Gee, who would have thunk it?

Obama Mentality

Obama: Student Radical
[Andy McCarthy] – NRO

During the campaign, I wrote a piece called “Why Won’t Obama Talk About Columbia? — The years he won’t discuss may explain the Ayers tie he keeps lying about.” So now, nearly six months into the Obama presidency, the mainstream media has finally done a bit of the candidate background reporting it declined to do during the campaign — other than in Wasilla — and whaddya know?  The New York Times unearthed a 1983 article called, “Breaking the War Mentality,” that Columbia student Barack Obama wrote for a campus newspaper. The article shows that Obama dreaded American “militarism” and its “military-industrial interests,” while effusing enthusiasm for the dangerously delusional nuclear-freeze movement.

Moreover, while indicating a preference for the political wisdom of reggae singer Peter Tosh over Ronald Reagan or Scoop Jackson, Obama bewailed the “narrow focus” of anti-militarism activists, worrying that they were targeting the “symptoms” rather than the real “disease,” namely, America’s underlying economic and political injustice:

Generally, the narrow focus of the [Nuclear] Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion dollar erector sets.  When Peter Tosh sings that “everybody’s asking for peace, but nobody’s asking for justice,” one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself.

Obama nevertheless did see some advantage in homing in on a small target:

Mark Bigelow [a graduate student who helped run “Arms Race Alternatives” (ARA), another of the campus organizations lauded in Obama’s article] … points to fruitful work being done by other organizations involved with disarmament.  “The Freeze is one part of a whole disarmament movement. The lowest common denominator, so to speak. For instance, April 10-16 is Jobs for Peac [sic] week, with a bunch of things going on around the city. Also, the New York City Council may pass a resolution in April calling for greater social as opposed to military spending. Things like this may dispell the idea that disarmament is a white issue, because how the government spends its revenue affects everyone.”

Obama, the budding community-organizer, also took time to praise “Students Against Militarism, an obscure campus group more ambitious in scope than ARA:

Also operating out of Earl Hall Center, Students Against Militarism was formed in response to the passage of [military draft] registration laws in 1980. An entirely student-run organizatoin, SAM casts a wider net than ARA, though for the purposes of effectiveness, they have tried to lock in on one issue at a time.

“At the heart of our organization is an anti-war focus”, says junior Robert Kahn, one of SAM’s fifteen or so active members. “From there, a lot of issues shoot forth — nukes, racism, the draft, and South Africa. “We have been better organized when taking one issue at a time, but we are always cognizant of other things going on, and collaborate frequently with other campus organizations like CISPES and REEL-POLITIK.” [Quotation break in original.]

Student Obama summed up with near incoherent Lefty gobbledygook:

Indeed, the most pervasive malady of the collegiate system specifically, and the American experience generally, is that elaborate patterns of knowledge and theory have been disembodied from individual choices and government policy. What the members of ARA and SAM try to do is infuse what they have learned about the current situation, bring the words of that formidable roster on the face of Butler Library, names like Thoreau, Jefferson, and Whitman, to bear on the twisted logic of which we are today a part. By adding their energy and effort in order to enhance the possibility of a decent world, they may help deprive us of a spectacular experience — that of war.  But then, there are some things we shouldn’t have to live through in order to want to avoid the experience.

Who knew?

Nice as it is of the media to scratch the surface journalists should have been mining over a year ago, the current disastrous straits for the country are that — as Jen Rubin contends at contentions — the Obama who is off to Russia to cut unratifiable deals with the recrudescent Soviets hasn’t really changed in the ensuing quarter-century.

Explore posts in the same categories: Abuse of Power

7 Comments on “Paper Written by Obama in 1983 Proves He is a Lefturd Commie Radical”

  1. tgusa Says:

    Are we really at the mercy of the media/state complex? I mean, don’t we have any legal recourse in all of this? It just doesn’t seem American that you can call yourself the 4th estate and in reality you are just the mouthpiece of the state and get away with it. There’s probably criminal behavior involved in this but we don’t enforce our laws anymore. That’s not entirely true, we selectively enforce the laws today, and justice for some.

    We know now that the USSR would never have disarmed and if Obama would have got his way the cold war would still be going, or maybe by now we would have lost it. Maybe that’s why he is in Russia negotiating like its 1978. I told you the all the weirdo’s of the late 60’s and 70’s were trying to resurrect their agenda from back then. What a bunch a dummies.

  2. Gramfan Says:

    “Who knew?”
    Some of us. Maybe not all the details but there were certainly enough warning signs about him.

    But,,,why find the details when you can destroy the Palins? So much more important for national security, right?/sarc off.

    I noticed this piece was referenced in The Australian and getting a fair bit of exposure on the ‘blogs.

    Also here’s an interesting piece from Gerard Calente:
    http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/07/gerald-celente-predicts-obamageddon-by.html

    I have seen him doing this before. I hope he is wrong.


  3. That last paragraph is complete gobbledegoop. Big words, complex multiclause sentences make it sound good. There were always one or two teachers who ate that stuff up though so spead it on thick while you’re at it!

  4. Stephan Says:

    I am hoping that you can find some of the crayon drawings done by Sarah Palin in the first grade that I think might show signs of early Enviromentofascism. I also wonder Bill Clinton’s third grade class project involving a matchstick diorama of an Indian Village obviously shows an intent to pay more remands, and, in addition, an examination of Mark Sanford yearbook inscriptions from the seventh grade will likely show that even then, he was known to lie to women. Keep up the good work.


    • What’s the matter? Did we hit a nerve with you?

      Considering that you are attempting to compare developmental years in elementary and middle school with solidifying ideologies in college, I have no doubt that you are suffering from some form of drug induced amentia.

      Poor thing. Maybe you can get some help for that when socialized medicine kicks in. But, I won’t hold my breath…

      However, be that as it may, Obama has shown that he continues to be a POS red-diaper-doper-baby and has never had the intelligence to break free of his Marxist programming that was shoved down his throat the moment he first suckled commie tainted milk from his apparatchik mother’s pinko infected teats.

      What’s your excuse?

      Cheers

      • Stephan Says:

        Sure, you hit a nerve (and my god, do you have to disparage my recently deceased mother’s teat!). Mr. Obama has done a host of things as a President and senator, and i am sure there are many legitimate arguments against his policies that are logical, and it is possible that he will f–k us up more even more than his abysmal duplicitous predecessor. I don’t believe going back to his formative years and dissecting a newspaper article is an appropriate criticism.

        By you logical “solidified ideologies” theory, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are still picking up DUIs and Ms. Palin is still an Alaskan separatist (none of which is true). While I have issues with the aforementioned people, I think none of those things are relevant to their recent performance or to a discussion of their current values.

        Pinko teats?


  5. Stephan,

    You are still confusing “solidified ideologies” with stages of “development.”

    A solidified ideology is one which, when introduced, holds relatively constant throughout one’s life. Call it, “mental stagnation,” if you will.

    This is quite different from a “developmental” stage, which is part of an amelioration of mental growth. Call it, “mental evolution,” if you will.

    Look at it this way: Let’s say, for example, that you are born Jewish. Your parents are Jewish and you are raised Jewish with Jewish traditions and all the concomitants that come with that.

    Now, that could be a developmental stage or a solidifying stage. It depends on whether or not you continue your life as a practicing Jew.

    Now, if you were to become a Christian, then your Jewishness would no longer be solidified. It would now be considered a developmental stage in your life because you have broken free from your Jewish roots and have become a Christian.

    That which you learned while a Jew can no longer be fully applied to your current status as a Christian. Sure, having been a Jew helps immensely in understanding the underlying foundation for Christianity, but it is NOT Christianity. Christianity teaches that you are saved by faith in the works and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, while Judaism teaches that you are saved by your own works and sacrifices. Two related, yet completely different concepts that are at odds with each other.

    Are you understanding this? Because, I wish to look at the examples you have provided:

    1) “Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are still picking up DUIs”

    That is incorrect. Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney were smart enough to learn from their mistakes and “developed” ideologies which were quite the opposite of their drunken youthful years.

    If they had remained drunks, then that would be a solidified ideology.

    Rather than remain “stagnant,” they have “evolved.”

    2) “Ms. Palin is still an Alaskan separatist”

    Well, we both know that it was her husband who was the Alaskan Separatist and not Sarah Palin herself. Of course, I’ve got no problem with the Alaskan Separatist movement because I think Alaskans should be able to vote as to if they wish to remain in the U.S. or not. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, I’ve often said that California should be voted out of the United States of America since they—as an entity—are about as far away Left from the Founding Father’s ideologies as you can get.

    But, I digressed. Getting back on track, let’s pretend that Sarah Palin was a Separatist and now is not a Separatist. Well, that shows development of her thoughts. Whereas, if she were to still be a Separatist, then that would represent a stagnation because of her solidified ideologies.

    Now, back to Obama. Obama has ALWAYS been a Commie. It shows up from the day he was born, throughout his childhood, into his teen years, college years, early adulthood, and, unsurprisingly, continues to this very day.

    That is a solidified ideology. It is stagnant and does not evolve. Therefore, we can better understand how Obama will react in certain situations by analyzing his previous college papers. The article in question was penned by Obama when he was 22-years-old. Plenty of time for him to have solidified his foundational ideologies.

    In fact, I can even give you an example of another 22-year-old whose ideology was solidified at such a young age – Isaac Asimov.

    When he was just 22-years-old, he put down on paper his three laws of robotics:

    1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
    2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
    3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

    Those three laws of robotics consistently influenced his writings—until his death—for the next five decades.

    To understand Isaac Asimov’s science fiction universe, one inevitably must study those three laws of robotics, for without the foundational knowledge of those three laws, Asimov’s robot stories would simply fail to be as effective as they are in the eyes of his readers.

    In fact, Asimov stated in 1990—just two years before his death—that his Three Laws of Robotics “guided me in forming my plots and made it possible to write many short stories, as well as several novels, based on robots. In these, I constantly studied the consequences of the Three Laws.” (“Isaac Asimov Gold,” published in 1995 by HarperPrism – page 225 of the 1996 paperback edition)

    I’ll let you cogitate on that one for a while.

    Meanwhile, let’s get back to Obama:

    If Obama somehow had more intelligence than he currently possesses and somewhere along the way had developed a different ideology than what he had in college, then you would be correct in your criticism. However, his red-diaper-doper-baby ideology is well solidified and, barring any aberrant epiphanies, he will continue to act and perform as he has all of his life – like a pinko commie Marxist Lefturd.

    Cheers


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: