When Obama bragged about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge

When Obama bragged about the Chicago

Annenberg Challenge

Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-45A6I-N5I&eurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/09/when_obama_bragged_about_the_c

Thomas Lifson
The Obama campaign and its media friends prefer to send his role in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge fiasco down the memory hole. It highlights his ties to William Ayers, and it was a colossal flop,  wasting $150 million dollars.

But once upon a time, when Obama was running (unsuccessfully) for Congress after just one term in the Illinois State Senate, he touted his experience with CAC as a qualification for high office. Check out this newly-discovered video:
Hat tip: D Phistry

Update — transcript courtesy of Doug Ross:

Interviewer: One of the criticisms that arises in connection with your candidacy is you simply haven’t been in the Senate very long, the State Senate. You have a limited track record in terms of time, what is your argument based on the one term that you’ve served so far? What makes you prepared for the Congress?

Obama: Well, I’m in my second term, but it’s true that certainly both Senator Trotter and Congressman Rush have been in elected office longer than I have. I can’t deny that. I would argue, though, that my experience previous to elected office equips me for the job. I have a background as an attorney, I’ve represented affordable housing organizations to build affordable housing, something that’s a major issue in the district.

I’ve chaired major philanthropic efforts in the city like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that gave fifty million dollars to prompt school reform efforts throughout the city.

Has Obama committed a felony violation of the Logan Act?

Has Obama committed a felony violation of the Logan Act?

The Logan Act, passed in 1799 and amended in 1994, is says this:

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

With that definition in mind, let’s look at what Obama is said to have done according to this piece by Amir Taheri in The New York Post:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

A couple of points:

Obama is not only irresponsibly meddling in the executive branch’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy, he’s blatantly playing politics with Iraqi policy in general and our troops specifically. Getting the troops home faster is what Obama wants, no? Not unless He gets credit for it, I suppose. As Ed Morrissey notes:

If Obama wants to negotiate a defeat for America, he needs to wait until Americans elect him to the White House before betraying our allies and our troops in the field.

Second: Congress should not “be involved in negotiations on the status of U.S. troops” — not under our Constitution, anyway. There’s a reason why heads of state, and not 535 members of Congress, negotiate with foreign governments. The former is orderly and lawful. The latter is chaotic and unlawful. Congress is in its right to “negotiate” with the executive branch, not directly with foreign powers.

Is this pretty blatant violation of the Logan Act perhaps a tad more significant story than the non-scandal of Sarah Palin not banning books in Wasilla? And how can a man whose instincts are to put his political ambition above the national interest be trusted with the White House? Audacity, indeed.

(HT: Jonah)

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

OBAMA TRIED TO STALL GIS’ IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

Barack Obama tours Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus in July, when he sought to stall any agreement for US troop withdrawal until President Bush left office.
LONG VIEW: Barack Obama tours Iraq with Gen. David Petraeus in July, when he sought to stall any agreement for US troop withdrawal until President Bush left office.

 

Last updated: 4:10 am
September 15, 2008
Posted: 4:02 am
September 15, 2008

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops – and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

“However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open.” Zebari says.

Though Obama claims the US presence is “illegal,” he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the “weakened Bush administration,” Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a “realistic withdrawal date.” They declined.

Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.

Supposing he wins, Obama’s administration wouldn’t be fully operational before February – and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.

By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.

Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament – which might well need another six months to pass it into law.

Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.

According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years – departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.

Even then, the dates mentioned are only “notional,” making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as “a man of the Left” – who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq’s liberation. Indeed, say Talabani’s advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Maliki’s advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win – but the prime minister worries about the senator’s “political debt to the anti-war lobby” – which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was “the biggest strategic blunder in US history.”

Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show “a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues.”

Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn’t want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of “pre-emptive” war – that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.

Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.

Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.

Obama Rally in DC Sparsely Attended

Obama Rally in DC Sparsely Attended

Christopher Alleva
Buried all the way on page C4 of the Metro section the Washington Post reported yesterday on a rally Saturday. The rally was so sparsely attended the best the photographer could come up with was a picture of an Obama cardboard cutout in front of the Lincoln memorial with a lone supporter decked out with a crude pre-printed paper campaign sign on their back. Sunday tourists on the mall vastly out-numbered  the Obama faithful.

Evidently, the Post is trying to downplay this less-than-rousing display enthusiasm for the “one.” Ironically, the very same day, Ombudsmen Deborah Howell tackled complaints that the wildly successful McCain-Palin rally in Fairfax Virginia last Thursday was relegated to the Metro section,  whereas an Obama rally in June (attended by less than half the number at the McCain event) was given front page

 

Howell gave readers the standard editor’s “front page space excuse.”

 

Tim Graham at Newsbusters is not buying it.

 

I did learn on thing from the Posts‘ pathetic coverage of this pathetic rally: Obama’s supporters may want to seek help somewhere. Governor Palin is driving them batty.

Obama peddles fraudulent mix of politics and religion

Obama peddles fraudulent mix of politics and

religion

By David Quinn
Friday September 12 2008

Republicans sometimes like to mix politics and religion. But for Democrats politics is religion

If you go on to YouTube and do a search for ‘Obama yes we can’ you’ll come across a music video by Will-I-Am of Black-Eyed Peas. It is nothing less than a hymn of praise to Barack ‘The Messiah’ Obama. In years to come, the other singers and actors who appear in it will be embarrassed to have ever been this awe-struck, this reverential, this worshipful, this pious. How could you, Scarlett Johansson?

Scarlett is not the only big name to be star-struck by Obama. So is Oprah Winfrey. Here’s what she had to say about him: “We’re here to evolve to a higher plane … he is an evolved leader… [he] has an ear for eloquence and a tongue dipped in the unvarnished truth.”

New-Age guru Deepak Chopra described him as, “A quantum leap in American consciousness”. Former US presidential candidate Gary Hart said: “He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians.” He’s “a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century”.

A star-struck Halle Berry promised: “I’ll do whatever he says to do. I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.” Will she wash his feet in oil and dry them with her hair as well? Probably.

If famous people, stars in their own right, are this awe-struck by Obama, what hope do ordinary mortals have? Not much, is the short answer. At his rallies the faithful chant ‘Obama, Obama’ like a prayer.

If Obama himself was to appear in resplendent white robes with the ‘The Age of Aquarius’ playing in the background, no one would be surprised. And if he was suddenly to be transfigured, if he appeared in a vision with those earlier prophets, Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy, his followers would think it the most natural thing in the world and they would erect a tent for them just like in the Bible.

If anyone doubts that the Democratic Party is the true party of religion in the United States, let them doubt no longer. Democrats may not talk about God as much as Republicans, and a lot of Democrats might be die-hard secularists, but their politics is so invested with the hope of a completely transformed world in which all problems and all divisions are overcome that, for them, politics is a form of religion.

This is why Democrat politicians usually make the best speeches. Ted Kennedy’s speeches conjure up an image of the Shining City on the Hill. So did those of his brother John. So do Barack Obama’s.

The reason Republican speeches are generally much less memorable, much less inspiring is that they don’t promise us the dawn of a new millennium. They might praise America and invoke patriotism, but mostly they are about workaday politics.

But another, more important reason is that Republicans usually save their religion for religion itself. They don’t make politics a religion substitute.

Republicans might be enthusiastic about Sarah Palin, for example, but they aren’t literally singing hymns of praise to her like the disciples of Barack.

This election has been completely mischaracterised. Sarah Palin is an Evangelical Christian and that makes us imagine that this is a battle between the forces of religious reaction and the forces of secular progress and enlightenment.

But it is precisely the religiosity of Sarah Palin and the groundedness of John McCain that gives them a sense of proportion about politics. Obama and his supporters have no such sense of proportion. For them, there is no limit to what politics can achieve. It can literally bring about Heaven on Earth.

Republicans sometimes like to mix politics and religion. But for Democrats, politics is religion. That shine you see in Barack Obama’s eyes, and in the eyes of his followers is the shine of the True Believer.

It is this lack of a sense of proportion that makes some of Barack’s speeches so completely overblown. His impressive baritone voice, his skill with words, and the way he can deliver those words in the rhythmic, hypnotic tones of the best black preachers help disguise the fact that he is a man suffering from a very severe case of Messiah-complex.

Only such a man could say, on the day he knew he had secured the Democratic nomination, that “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”.

Barack needs to realise that politics is just politics. It’s not religion. We’re not at the dawn of a New Age. We’re not about to evolve to a new and higher level of consciousness.

In fact, here are some lyrics Will-I-Am and all those other star-struck stars might like to sing to remind themselves of this. They are taken, appropriately enough, from ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’: They go like this: “He’s a man, he’s just a man.” Keep singing that between now and November 4 and everything should be all right.

dquinn@independent.ie

– David Quinn

Forces of Darkness: What Europeans are Saying about Sarah Palin

Forces of Darkness: What Europeans are Saying about Sarah Palin

Created 2008-09-14 19:50

Europeans have greeted the news of Sarah Palin’s nomination for Vice President of the United States with a predictable mixture of anger, frustration, resentment and resignation. After more than a year of uncritically praising Barack Obama as a supernatural figure destined by fate to solve all of the world’s problems, European elites are suddenly coming to terms with the unwelcome possibility that the junior senator from Illinois might just be another human being after all.

European commentary on Sarah Palin has ranged from ridicule, to ridicule, to more ridicule, to reluctant acknowledgment that Barack Obama may have met his match. In any case, many European elites are sensing that the Democratic presidential candidate, by failing to pick US Senator Hillary Clinton as his running mate, may have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

A common theme running through much of European commentary is that Palin lacks qualifications; it is a critique European elites could, but will not, apply to Obama, presumably because he is a Democrat, and thus ideologically acceptable to Europe’s enlightened class. Many Europeans lament that Palin is (according to Europeans) pushing the US presidential election into a battle of values rather than of policies, as if there is any real substance to Obama.

But if there is one single aspect to Sarah Palin that threatens the smug certitude of Europe’s secular gatekeepers, it is her Christian faith. It therefore comes as no big surprise that Europe’s media elites have directed the bulk of their fury at American evangelical Christian voters. As if European secularism is not also a religion.

 war obama hands guns fight love country vote mccain palin

What follows is a brief survey of what some of Europe’s leading newspapers are saying about Sarah Palin.

Ireland’s most prestigious newspaper, the Irish Times, runs a headline that says: “Just a heartbeat away from the biggest half-baked Alaskan nightmare.” Another article titled “Palin the latest torch bearer for anti-science” asks: “Who literally believes that Jonah made his home in a whale’s abdomen? Nobody really, apart from the US president – and the woman who was recently added to the 2008 Republican ticket…. Sarah Palin is the latest politician to carry the torch of science misinformation tainted by religious dogma lit during the Reagan administration and nurtured by George Bush…. Yet centuries after the Enlightenment, Sarah Palin, the putative US vice-president, can endorse the passing off of Bible stories as scientific facts, dressed up as the oxymoronic term ‘creationist science’.” And just in case the paper’s editors were not being absolutely clear about their choice for US president, yet another article proclaims: “Obama embodies the future King dreamt about.”

Britain’s leftwing Guardian newspaper tries to figure out “How to solve the Sarah Palin problem.” Another story titled “Sarah Palin’s war against information” asserts that “The McCain team knows that if the media do their job and give Palin the same scrutiny that any candidate for high office must endure, she will collapse.” Still another story warns that “Obama faces lurking forces of darkness.”

The London-based Economist magazine, in commentary titled “The Woman from Nowhere,” says “John McCain’s choice of running-mate raises serious questions about his judgment…. The political calculations behind Mr McCain’s choice hardly look robust…. The moose in the room, of course, is her lack of experience…. Inexperienced and Bush-level incurious…. Mr McCain’s appointment also raises more general worries about the Republican Party’s fitness for government…. The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics…. One of the biggest problems with the Bush administration is that it appointed so many incompetents because they were sound on Roe v Wade. Mrs Palin’s elevation suggests that, far from breaking with Mr Bush, Mr McCain is repeating his mistakes.”

The London-based Financial Times admits that “Palin erodes Obama’s monopoly on change.” Elsewhere, the paper warns that “Democrats dismiss Palin at their peril.”

According to France’s center-right Le Figaro, Palin will “trigger the eruption of moral intolerance in the campaign.” This is actually rather funny, because French elites are notoriously tolerant with everyone, except for those who do not agree with them.

In keeping with the policies versus values theme, the Paris-based leftwing Le Monde says “The choice of Ms Palin has turned the centrist John McCain into the ‘heir to Bush’.” And the weekly newsmagazine Le Point calls Palin “the fanatic of the American heartland.” It describes her speech to the Republican Convention as a “declaration of war [on the] Democrats as well as on the media and elites who dare to raise doubts about her ability to serve as vice-president of the United States.”

Germany’s leftwing Der Spiegel takes special delight in mocking Palin’s religious beliefs: “Sarah Palin’s Pentacostalist [sic] past explains a lot about what she says in public, but the McCain campaign wants to play it down. Can a gas pipeline really be a manifestation of God’s will?…. Sarah Palin has shown a habit of investing secular matters with religious meaning…. Palin acts as though all political decisions emanated directly from a divine resolution—and as if the Republican understanding of this resolution were the only one that could be correct.”

The Berlin-based left-leaning Die Tageszeitung says: “With the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice-presidential candidate, John McCain took on exactly what Obama avoided at all costs with Biden: A much-talked-about risk. McCain/Palin—this is where real life romps.” Another columnist writes: Sarah Palin “has a closed, conservative—in part reactionary—worldview. The coordinates of her value system are well known: Family, military strength, small government, a confident America. But there is a new face to these traditional values. This is a great attraction…. This competition is an unexpected threat for Barack Obama.”

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung runs an article about “Superwoman Palin” titled “Supermama” which argues that: “There is absolutely nothing wrong with ultra-conservative Republicans, amid their otherwise steadfast evangelical certainly, to make a U-turn. In the past for instance, when dealing with a mother of five and soon-to-be grandmother, they would not have been so quick and would even have considered it reckless to advise her to take on a job as well, let alone one of such importance.”

The Financial Times Deutschland greets the news of Palin’s ascent with unabashed hostility: “McCain’s hubris and irresponsibility are by now blatant. Hubris, because only a belief in his own immortality for the next four years could justify the choice of a vice president whose only experience, aside from two years as governor of Alaska, was as mayor of a suburb of Anchorage. Irresponsibility, because US presidents run a high risk of being attacked, as exemplified by John F Kennedy’s assassination, as well as by the attack on Ronald Reagan. Imagine what would happen if a President McCain were shot…The world would wake up the next morning to a President Palin…. More has been publicized in the last few days about Palin’s person and family than about her views on domestic and foreign politics, which shows neither the American intellectual condition nor their public media in the best light. A preacher moderated the first debate between presidential nominees Obama and McCain during which they had to answer questions on faith and how they would handle the evil bad guys of the world. A politician whose attitude toward war and peace are largely a mystery could become president in five months, and people discuss the implications of her daughter’s pregnancy. The country where all this is happening is the most powerful in the world. But for how much longer?”

The Munich-based, left-leaning Süddeutsche Zeitung assures its readers that: “McCain used to look like an ideal candidate for the party. The conservative free-spirit repeatedly defied the current president and thereby emanated seriousness and self-assurance…. Sarah Palin threatens to demolish [McCain’s] halo…. The lingering impression [is] that McCain called this fresh face to his side purely out of strategic campaign calculations…. Palin’s selection comes across as imprudent, unserious and, yes, dangerous…. McCain has miscalculated: those Democrats who were disappointed by Hillary’s failure and might possibly have voted for the Republican veteran will hardly be lured by the ultraconservative pro-lifer…. McCain only hopes that the evangelical base will gather behind him with new fury. That is important, but not enough to win the election in November. The payoff for this deputy from the right is less than the price of the risk that McCain runs with the center. Sarah Palin will cost the Republican Party dearly.”

Meanwhile, Germany’s center-right Die Welt, considered by many to be one of the country’s better daily newspapers, offers a trite 15-question online Sarah Palin Quiz. Question 1: “Do you know Sarah Palin’s current job?” Question 2: “Do you know the name of Palin’s underage daughter, the one who is pregnant?” Question 3: “What revelations have become public about Sarah Palin?” Answer A: “She likes to wear latex and leather”; Answer B: “As a child, she once stole a lollypop”; Answer C: “Her husband was arrested for drunk driving”; Answer D: “She first wanted to be a Democrat.”

Spain’s leftwing El País newspaper reports that Sarah Palin is “a figure who comes from the America that is farthest removed from, and incomprehensible to, the European spectator…[who] represents values and policy proposals…the outlawing of abortion, the preponderance of religious faith, the supremacy of the traditional family, the subjection of the State to individual initiative…”

Spain’s conservative ABC newspaper runs an opinion essay titled “Obama Who Art in Heaven” which says that Sarah Palin “seems to be treacherously undermining the huge dose of goodwill that European public opinion has devoted to Obama. Now the governor of Alaska, a member of the National Rifle Association, who promotes her state as the land of hunters, is the exact opposite of Barack Obama.” Palin represents and America that is “wild, fundamentalist and a practitioner of lynching” while Obama represents an America that is “archangelic and cosmopolitan” because, for millions of Europeans, Obama “represents the antipode of the death penalty and the free access to guns.” There is a “vast divide between the intellectual sophistication of ‘The New York Review of Books’ and the mass consumption in the commercial emporium of Wal-Mart. Those divides are nothing less than the reality of the United States: the Harvard of Obama the angry and prosperous Alaska of Sarah Palin.”

ABC then pauses for an odd moment of reflection: “Our old error is prejudging rather than trying to understand. That is why we never forgive the United States while we absolve every other country in the world…. Even if Europeans believe otherwise; Obama is not in heaven, but in the middle of a presidential campaign.” Thanks, ABC, for the reminder.

The Barcelona-based La Vanguardia writes that “Palin can sell what no candidate other can offer: a boring and hardscrabble American life. Not only is Palin ‘one of ours,’ according to enthusiastic Republican voters, who have awakened from their slumber with unusual force, but she could be anyone’s niece. A real peanut butter girl.” The newspaper concludes: “Undoubtedly, of all of the surprises of this campaign, [Palin] is the most brilliant. With her nomination, McCain has shown two things: that he is very smart and that he is not yet defeated.”

 
Soeren Kern is Senior Fellow for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. This article was first published in American Thinker on September 13 2008.


John McCain Has Some Odd Fans: His Jailers at the ‘Hanoi Hilton’

As Polls Tighten, Obama Rachets Up Rhetoric

Obama’s mentor at Occidental College speaks

Obama’s mentor at Occidental College speaks

Thomas Lifson
Lawrence Goldyn, Barack Obama’s mentor during his freshman and sophomore years at Occidental College, speaks out about the young Obama in an interview with The Southern Voice, a gay newspaper in Atlanta. He provides some helpful context in understanding the political and academic development of Barack Obama.

A very big part of Lawrence Goldyn’s life as a junior professor of political science seems to have involved his homosexuality. He designed and taught a course on sexual politics, mentored gay students (and some heterosexuals like Obama), and attributes denial of tenure at Occidental in 1981 to perceptions of him as a radical. The article by  Lou Chibarro, Jr reports:

 

His reputation for holding out-of-class discussions with students attracted a number of straight students, Goldyn said. He noted that many of those students who gravitated toward him were older black and Latino students who were interested in his strong views on social issues and racial politics.

Goldyn said Obama stood out, though, by participating in the discussions as a freshman or sophomore.

“He was younger, and coming to a somewhat elite, private college … I am sure he felt like a fish out of water, and he had every reason to feel insecure about himself in a place like that,” Goldyn said.

 

Obama appears to have been undergoing a political radicalization during these two years.

 

[As] the New York Times reported in February 2008 that several of Obama’s fellow Occidental students saw the young Obama grow increasingly interested in politics, particularly in his sophomore year. [….]
“He wasn’t a very serious student yet,” Goldyn said about Obama when the student arrived at Occidental. “So I felt good that I contributed to him sort of getting it together and focusing on what he wanted to do.

 

Goldyn does not mention whether or not he had any role in Obama’s transfer to Columbia. Did he write a recommendation? Did he help Obama decide to transfer to a college with an urban setting, and a strong left wing activist presence?

 

But the most fascinating observation of all comes at the end, when Goldyn, an enthusiastic Obama supporter, is asked by the reporter to comment on Obama’s failure to support gay marriage (he supports civil unions):

 

“It’s very hard to put a whole coalition together, and you have to figure out a way to negotiate and navigate where he is clearly supportive of gay rights, but he cannot come out up front and say that he’s in favor of marriage, because the country, I don’t think, may be ready for that in an election,” he said. “And I don’t have a problem with that.”

 

Here you have a man who knows, likes and supports Obama, who, like me, believes he is a phony who will say things just to appease stupid voters.  Goldyn apparently shares Obama’s low opinion of ordinary people as dimwits, and approves of Obama’s cleverness in lying to the rubes. Superior folk like him know better.

 

Hat tip: Clarice Feldman

Obama’s embellished resume? Follow the links in the article

Obama’s embellished resume?

Thomas Lifson
Steve Gilbert of Sweetness & Light highlights the awkward difference between Barack Obama’s description of his post-Columbia work at a “consulting firm” in Dreams from my Father, and an account  published by an un-named source who claims to have worked at the same company, which I believe was called Business International.

As one somewhat familiar with the type of publishing this company did, the anonymous source’s account rings very true to me, while Obama’s rings false. But of course I cannot claim to be unbiased. Read Steve’s account, his comments, and see for yourself.