College Paper Shows Obama Was a Raving Anti-American Kook
I would have been more specific. He was a raging anti-AMERICAN MILITARY kook! Be sure to read Gateway Pundit's brief commentary (below). A lot of the comments are really good, too.
The fact that there is a lot of rambling about nothing (an Obama trait that lasts to this day), misspelled words, improper grammar, and what looks to me like some copied content (without crediting references) shows how inarticulate the author is without his teleprompter! Ha!
Gateway Pundit:
Well, what do you know?
The state-run media can do research. It only took them 8 months after the election to release this crazy Far Left anti-American article Barack Obama wrote while in college.
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... 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.
how long do you suppost the NT Times have been sitting on this piece?
Today, the kook landed in Russia and is going to try to talk the Russians into disarming. It's more likely that he will sell out our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic instead.
It's all part of that hope and change we're getting used to. Thanks, New York Times.
One of the commenters mentioned that the New York Times probably released this information because they are as lefty-looney as Obama and think it's a "positive" about him as a college student!
Yeah right...UGH!!!
The portion of the sloppy, often incoherent rant that bothered me the most was this:
Generally, the narrow focus of the
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. Mark Bigelow
does not think so. "We do focus primarily
on catastrophic weapons. Look,
we say, here's the worst part, let's work
on that. You're not going to get rid of
the military in the near future, so let's at
least work on this."
Mark Bigelow does feel that the
links are there, and points to fruitful
work being done by other organizations
involved with disarmament. The
Freeze is one part of a whol [sic] 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[sic]
the idea that disarmament is a white
issue, because how the government
spends its revenue affects everyone."
The very real advantages of concentrating
on a single issue is leading
the National Freeze movement to challenge
individual missile systems, while
continuing the broader campaign. This
year, Mark Bigelow sees the checking
of Pershing II and Cruise missile de·
ployment as crucial. "Because of their
small size and mobility, their deployment
will make possible arms control
verification far more difficult, and will
cut down warning time for the Soviets
to less than ten minutes. That can only
be a destabilizing factor." Additionally,
he sees the initiation by the U.S. of the
Test Ban Treaty as a powerful first step
towards a nuclear free world.
Earth to student Obama?? We live in the real world here! If we did what you wanted America to do with her nuclear weapons in the 80's we would be sitting ducks for North Korea and Iran!
There is so much more that can be commented on about that article. But I will leave that fun for anyone else who would like to do that.
Found this section quite ironic - based on the ObamaFRAUD's habit of "talking out of both sides of his mouth during the entire campaign, as well as right now as our usurper!
Regarding Columbia's possible
compliance, one comment in particular
hit upon an important point with the
Solomon hill, "The thing we need to do is
expose how columbia is talking out of
two sides of its mouth."
Even though the following section of the newspaper (included in the PDF file) is the second part of an additional article that started on "page 1" - take a look at the STUPID opinion that was expressed about Reagan "playing into the Russian's hands."
History has shown otherwise!
Bet that writer feels like such a fool now!
Green • continued from page 1
[a]nd soon, it is quite probable that the
Germans will do something on their
own. The Reagan administration's stalling
at the Geneva talks on nuclear weapons
has thus already caused severe
tension and could ultimately bring about
a dangerous rift between the United
States and Western Europe. By being
intransigent, Reagan is playing directly
into the Russians' hands.
In 1933 the German establishment
thought it could use Hitler to restore a
modicum of order to the confused and
confusing Weimar Republic. In fact,
Hitler did strengthen the German establishment,
but not exactly in the way
the bankers and businessmen had
wanted; and now, fifty years later, it is
clear who was using whom.
Nevertheless, the Western World
did not complain in 1933 because Hitler,
though a fascist and a totalitarian, was
seen, like countless American puppet
dictators today, as someone who leaves
the established order in place. (Christine: what??)
Not so the Greens. If a group of
young, anti-establishment pacifists
with unusual ideas and uncomfortable
answers to hard questions terrifies us
more today than Hitler, Himmler,
Goering and Goebbels did back in 1933,
our terror says more about us than it
does about the Greens or the Germans. (Christine: that's just so crazy but lol!!)
It indicates that we have failed to comprehend
the meaning of Nazism and
blind obedience to authority in their full
horror, and that we, unlike the Greens,
have yet ourselves to learn the democratic
lesson that we have taught the
Germans so well.
Since the European peace movement
has long since become the American
peace movement, and since America
now has its own Green Party, the rise
of the Greens in Germany has profound
significance here. It is at once a warning
to us that the old solutions of more weapons
and again more weapons will no
longer be accepted in a Europe that is
already a powderkeg waiting to go off;
and it is an invitation to work towards a
peace that is genuine, lasting and non-nuclear. (Christine: Earth to this author, too?? We live in the real world here! If we did what you wanted America to do with her nuclear weapons in the 80's we would be sitting ducks for North Korea and Iran.)
One more thing. A commenter shares some thoughts about Obama's "Fourth of July" speech.
From Doug Ross' site:Quote o' the day: "We don't know about you, but we find it creepy that an American President gave a 751-word, Fourth of July address without once mentioning the words "freedom" or "liberty" or even the American Revolution." -- Dinocrat
Not to mention "limited government"... though he did mention "American workers", saving the planet through carbon cap-and-trade and nationalizing health care.
Chisum 07.06.09 - 11:57 am
Obama rarely, if EVER talks about liberty or freedom.
President Ronald Reagan ALWAYS spoke of love for our nation, praise for our military in protecting it, and the demonstration of patriotism by helpful Americans.
Not so Obama.
Why?
Perhaps that college paper gives us a hint.
Hat Tip:
Gateway Pundit
*******
Update 7/7/09:
Maggies Notebook reports:
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Obama Chides Military Might
In a speech before Moscow's New Economic School, Time.com is quoting President Obama saying countries who are militarized have no future.The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground.
And one, two, three...all together now, al Qaeda and the Taliban said: "you go brother!" So what's his plan for Iran and North Korea?
One day this President will learn a hard lesson: his power lies in the military might and strength of America - that means our military strength, not his military strength.
The naivete of this former Columbia college kook is unconscionable!!
You people that voted for this DOOFUS and HIGHLY UNQUALIFIED, INELIGIBLE USURPER OF OUR CONSTITUTION - thanks a lot for your utter stupidity!!
*******
GateWay Pundit: How Much of This Hope & Change Disaster Can Americans Take?
*******
Update #2:
The Obama File's post on Obama's college article and naivete:
"I Am Not Naïve"
Rosslyn Smith writes -- That brief statement of Barack Obama's last month seems every bit as risible as Richard Nixon's "I am not a crook", after one reads the article on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Obama wrote for the student newspaper his senior year at Columbia. The New York Times rediscovered the student article on Independence Day and seems to want to spin it as a sign of the president's deep nature.
He railed against discussions of "first- versus second-strike capabilities" that "suit the military-industrial interests" with their "billion-dollar erector sets," and agitated for the elimination of global arsenals holding tens of thousands of deadly warheads.
The student was Barack Obama, and he was clearly trying to sort out his thoughts. In the conclusion, he denounced "the twisted logic of which we are a part today" and praised student efforts to realize "the possibility of a decent world." But his article, "Breaking the War Mentality," which only recently has been rediscovered, said little about how to achieve the utopian dream.
Unfortunately that sorting out process hasn't exactly progressed in 26 years. Obama's plans for a nuclear free world today are just as chock full of high sounding rhetoric and wishful thinking and just as bereft of details as they were when he was a senior at Columbia as to exactly how one is to accomplish such a lofty goal in a world of rogue nations. Conveniently forgotten by The Times is that all the nuclear freeze movement predictions Obama supported about the shape of the future were wrong. Instead of leading to a nuclear Armageddon, the increases in defense spending under Reagan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern block.
Obama seems determined to continue to pursue the policy goals he held as a student instead of learning from two decades of subsequent real world events. What is even more disturbing is how people like Richard Lugar continue to give Obama high marks for "being a good listener" and a "serious student" as they patronizingly give him a pass on the implementation of workable plans.
Most Americans outgrew their student mode shortly after they had to earn a living for themselves in jobs that had more quantifiable performance criteria than community organizing, Obama naive? Throw in sophistic, jejune and purblind to everything isn't a neat fit into ideological cubby holes that haven't change in two decades and you'll be on the right track.
Frank Gaffney sums it up in Commentary:"If the implications were not so serious, the discrepancy between Mr. Obama's plans and real-world conditions would be hilarious," said Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a Reagan-era Pentagon official who directs the Center for Security Policy, a private group in Washington.
Posts
