Obama Hid His Father's Socialism From Readers
[cross posted at PrestoPundit]
The "Rosebud" of Barack Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER.
There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?
And there is more mystery in the book. Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?" Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others? Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer? It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir.
If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220) And what was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)
So we know that his father's ideals were a driving force in his life, but the one thing that Obama does not give us are the contents of those ideals. The closest he comes is when he tells us that his father lost his position in the government when he came into conflict with Jomo Kenyatta, the President of Kenya sometime in the mid 1960s; when he tells us that his father was imprisoned for his political views by the government just prior to the end of colonial rule; and when he tells us that the attributes of W. E. B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela were the ones he associated with his father and also the ones that he sought to instill in himself. (p. 220) This last group is a hodge podge, perhaps concealing as much as it reveals, in that it contains a socialist black nationalist, a Muslim black nationalist, a civil rights leader, and (at the time indicated in the memoir) an imprisoned armed revolutionary.
A bit of research at the library reveals the answers about Barack Obama's father and his father's convictions which Obama withholds from his readers. A first hint comes from authors E. S. Atieno Odhiambo and David William Cohen in their book The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio U. Press, 2004). On page 182 of their book they describe how Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga, in a paper Barack Obama's father worte for the East Africa Journal. As Odhiambo and Cohen write, "The debates [over economic policy] pitted .. Mboya against .. Oginga Odinga and radical economists Dharam Ghai and Barrack Obama, who critiqued the document for being neither African nor socialist enough."
I have a copy of Barack Obama's paper here in my hand, obtained from the stacks at UCLA. The paper is as describe by Odhiambo and Cohen, a cutting attack from the left on Tom Mboya's historically important policy paper "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya." The author is given as "Barak H. Obama" and his paper is titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism", published July, 1965 in the East African Journal, pp. 26-33.
Obama stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:
1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)
2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)
3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)
4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism. Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)
5. Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. " (pp. 29-30)
6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)
7. Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)
8. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a "non-aligned" status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China. (p. 26)
So what does all this tell us about Barack Obama, the father, and how does it help us fill in the gaps and decipher Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father? We know from Obama's memoir that his father is an "uncompromising" man whose ideals and principles gets him in trouble with the "big man" who ran Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, leading to a dramatic scene in which Kenyatta personally confronts Obama the father and in one fell swoop destroys not only his government career but ultimately his life. Working with Obama's book alone it is hard to know what is going on. We get only an inkling when Obama quotes his "Granny" (one of Obama the elder's wives) as saying the following,"I would tell him he was too stubborn in his dealings with the government. He would talk to me of his principle .. " (p. 424)
Now if we fill in the missing information we have now learned about Barack Obama the elder -- that he held uncompromising socialist and anti-Western views in line with Kenyatta's principle political rival Oginga Odinga -- we can understand why he had conflicts of "principle" with Kenyatta and government. And the timeline begins to make sense. TIME magazine reports the open conflict between the anti-communist, pro-Western Kenyatta and the communist-allied, anti-Western Odinga in a story from June, 1965, a story in which Odinga declares "communism is like food to me." By 1966 Odinga was out of the government. In Obama's Dream From My Father these political events and their consequences for Barack Obama the elder are described in the voice of his sister Auma:
"The Old Man [Obama], he left the American company to work in the government, for the Ministry of Tourism. He may have had political ambitions, and at first he was doing well in the government. But by 1966 or 1967, the divisions in Kenya had become more serious. President Kenyatta was from the largest tribe, the Kikuyus .. The vice-president, Odinga, was a Luo [as was Obama], and he said the government was becoming corrupt. That, instead of serving those who had fought for independence, Kenyan politicians had take the place of white colonials, buying businesses and land that should be redistributed to the people. Odinga tried to start his own party, but was placed under house arrest as a Communist. Another popular Luo minister, Tom M'boya, was killed by a Kikuyu gunman. Luos began to protest in the streets, and the government police cracked down ..
Most of the Old Man's friends just kept quiet and learned to live with the situation. But the Old Man began to speak up. He would tell people that tribalism was going to ruin the country and that unqualified men were taking the best jobs. His friends tried to warn him about saying such things in public, but he didn't care. He always thought he know what was best, you see. When he was passed up for a promotion, he complained loudly. 'How can you be my senior,' he would say to one of the ministers, 'and yet I am teaching you how to do your job properly?' Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker, and he was called in to see the president .. Kenyatta said to the Old Man that, because he could not keep his mouth shut, he would not work again until he had no shoes on his feet.
I don't know how much of these details are true. But I know that with the president as an enemy things became very bad for the Old Man. He was banished from the government -- blacklisted. None of the ministries would give him work. When he went to foreign companies to look for a post, the companies were warned not to hire him .. Finally, he had to accept a small job with the Water Department."
There are a couple of false notes in this account. To begin with, Barack Obama the father didn't "begin" to speak up. Obama was challenging the policies of Kenyatta's government from the left in the most prestigious forum possible, the East Africa Journal, at exactly the same moment when Vice President Odinga was challenging the Kenyatta government from the left. What is more, Obama did so in openly arrogant and condescending fashion, almost as if saying to Kenyatta and his government, 'How can you [be in charge of the economy], when I am teaching you how to do your job properly?" The last lines of Obama's EAJ paper capture the tone of the whole,
Despite my remarks, it is laudable that the government came out with the paper. But this is not to deny that fact that it could have been a better paper if the government were to look into priorities and see them clearly within their context so that their implementation could have had a basis on which to rely. Maybe it is better to have something perfunctorily done than none at all!
TO BE CONTINUED.
Postscript. The historical significance of the clash between Kenyan leaders Mboya and Odinga continues to be an important subject of discussion in the Kenya even today, and more so given the rise of Oginga Odinga's son Raila Odinga. Odinga recently claimed to be Barack Obama's cousin, and the two appeared together in 2006 at pubic events.
NOTES:
"Marxist professors" -- see page 100 of Dreams From My Father
"a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor" -- the character "Frank" in Dreams For My Father is the communist poet Frank Marshall Davis.
"Frantz Fanon" -- see page 100 of Dreams From My Father.
"attend socialist conferences" -- see page 122 of Dreams From My Father
Comments (56)
Google Book Search: http://tinyurl.com/4lf9b4
Published: April 7, 2008 7:30 PM
prescott bush supported hitler in the 30's .search it like grandfather ,father and son make money off of killing humanity
Published: April 7, 2008 8:24 PM
This is interesting Greg - but so what? I'm not sure what, if anything, of the views of Obama's Kenyan father - who left Obama's mother when he was teo years old - can be attributed Barack Obama the American.
Further, it seems that the father and the son bear the same name, but you nowhere make that clear, and do a poor job of distinguishing them. Instead, we have repeated references to "Obama" without identification that you're referring to the father. Further, even though Obama's father has been dead 20+ years, you still have references to him in the present tense. It's almost as if you're inviting someone to take your lack of care and spread it further.
I respectfully suggest that you spend a little time cleaning up what you've posted here, as a service to possible readers.
TT
Published: April 7, 2008 8:56 PM
Interesting article. Europe is full of ex-communist politicians who've turned to social democracy. I can't say that I'd recommend electing such an individual.
TT, I couldn't find references to Obama senior in the present tense. But distinguishing better between father and son would improve the article.
Published: April 8, 2008 4:09 AM
franz fannon also wrote a very famous civil rights book called black faces, white masks or something. he was known more for that than his communist sympathies
Published: April 8, 2008 8:37 AM
Who cares what Obama’s Father was? He left him when he was 2 years old!!! Jesus Christ’s Father was a Jew, but Christ formed a different Church, and a different religion. Karl Marx did not come from a communistic family, he came up with those ideas on his own. Hillary Clinton’s Father was a Republican. Ronald Reagan was formerly a Democrat, and he turned into a Republican President.
This idea of trying to attack someone through their birth, their race, their family, or their Pastor (or, in the case of Ronald Reagan, judging by his past political affiliation) is idiotic at best, and disingenuous at worst. Listen to what the candidates are saying. Listen to the speeches they made before the Iraq War. Look at their voting records. If you have something good or bad to say about any of the candidates concerning THEIR OWN voting records or something they advocate in their speeches or the political positions on their websites, then say it. Otherwise, quit slicing the baloney!
Mitt Rommney’s Father was a Liberal Democrat of the FDR mold and Rommney, an arch consevative, has consistently and properly praised his father. Even if my father had been a Ku Klux Klansman (he wasn’t) I would still owe much to my father–our parents bring us into existence and provide us with the raw materials and DNA to build a unique person–a person who develops their own ideas, their own life, and their own politics.
The point is that it doesn’t matter whether your Father (or Mother) was a thief or a murderer, a communist or a coward, a rogue or a notorious sinner. The tradition of both Christianity and of America is that children do not inherit the sins of their parents. The meaning of God’s gift of free will and our constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty and freedom of thought and political expression is that we aren’t judged by the sins or errors of our parents. Everyone gets a chance to rise and fall on their own merits. The twisted argument you are making is the same one they tried to make about the blind man in the New Testament. “Was it because of his parents sin that he was born blind” they asked? Christ set them straight–we are NOT punished for the sins of our parents, and we are not to judge others by what their parents may have done in the past. Every human person is a free and unique individual that should be judged on their own individual merits. If what I am saying was not true, then we would all be hopelessly dragged down by the weight of the many sins and mistakes of our ancestors–nobody could progress forward. And just because Obama honors his Father does NOT mean that he agrees with him on his political views or anything else for that matter. There’s a really great set of rules that I would recommend to you called The Ten Commandments. It’s found in both the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah, and it is the primary basis for our judeo-christian ethics and laws. One of those commandments is “Honor Thy Father and Mother”. Note carefully that the Commandment does NOT say to honor your Father and Mother because they are good, or honor them when you agree with their politics–it simply says to honor them. As Children, we honor our parents for being our parents (just as we honor God for being our God). And if Obama chooses to honor his Father, whether in a book or otherwise, then he is simply following that particular Commandment as he understands it. Your “parents’ views=childrens’ views” argument flys in the face of that reality.
Published: April 8, 2008 8:39 AM
Who cares what Obama’s Father was? He left him when he was 2 years old!!! Jesus Christ’s Father was a Jew, but Christ formed a different Church, and a different religion. Karl Marx did not come from a communistic family, he came up with those ideas on his own. Hillary Clinton’s Father was a Republican. Ronald Reagan was formerly a Democrat, and he turned into a Republican President.
This idea of trying to attack someone through their birth, their race, their family, or their Pastor (or, in the case of Ronald Reagan, judging by his past political affiliation) is idiotic at best, and disingenuous at worst. Listen to what the candidates are saying. Listen to the speeches they made before the Iraq War. Look at their voting records. If you have something good or bad to say about any of the candidates concerning THEIR OWN voting records or something they advocate in their speeches or the political positions on their websites, then say it. Otherwise, quit slicing the baloney!
Mitt Rommney’s Father was a Liberal Democrat of the FDR mold and Rommney, an arch consevative, has consistently and properly praised his father. Even if my father had been a Ku Klux Klansman (he wasn’t) I would still owe much to my father–our parents bring us into existence and provide us with the raw materials and DNA to build a unique person–a person who develops their own ideas, their own life, and their own politics.
The point is that it doesn’t matter whether your Father (or Mother) was a thief or a murderer, a communist or a coward, a rogue or a notorious sinner. The tradition of both Christianity and of America is that children do not inherit the sins of their parents. The meaning of God’s gift of free will and our constitution’s guarantee of individual liberty and freedom of thought and political expression is that we aren’t judged by the sins or errors of our parents. Everyone gets a chance to rise and fall on their own merits. The twisted argument you are making is the same one they tried to make about the blind man in the New Testament. “Was it because of his parents sin that he was born blind” they asked? Christ set them straight–we are NOT punished for the sins of our parents, and we are not to judge others by what their parents may have done in the past. Every human person is a free and unique individual that should be judged on their own individual merits. If what I am saying was not true, then we would all be hopelessly dragged down by the weight of the many sins and mistakes of our ancestors–nobody could progress forward. And just because Obama honors his Father does NOT mean that he agrees with him on his political views or anything else for that matter. There’s a really great set of rules that I would recommend to you called The Ten Commandments. It’s found in both the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah, and it is the primary basis for our judeo-christian ethics and laws. One of those commandments is “Honor Thy Father and Mother”. Note carefully that the Commandment does NOT say to honor your Father and Mother because they are good, or honor them when you agree with their politics–it simply says to honor them. As Children, we honor our parents for being our parents (just as we honor God for being our God). And if Obama chooses to honor his Father, whether in a book or otherwise, then he is simply following that particular Commandment as he understands it. Your “parents’ views=childrens’ views” argument flys in the face of that reality.
Published: April 8, 2008 8:40 AM
I can't fathom why anyone would care about any of this. I suppose some are more interested in Obama than I am... to me he is just another clown, another monkey who has no real views of substance, just vacuous, empty rhetoric... and a whole lotta "hope" and "change".
Published: April 8, 2008 8:51 AM
"Who cares what Obama’s Father was?" and "I can't fathom why anyone would care about any of this."
Well, just look at the title of the book. That's the who.
As to why, well, there is a reasonable likelyhood that the person who wrote this book will be elected the next President of the US.
It's perfectly reasonable to ignore who my father was, since I am not claiming to base my life upon his teachings. Yet Obama the Younger _is_ making those claims, so it's perfectly reasonable to determine what it is he says he is basing his life's dreams upon.
To put it in school-yard terms, HE started it.
Published: April 8, 2008 9:30 AM
"Who cares what Obama’s Father was?"
The whole point of the article is that Obama claims he is trying to fullfill his father's vision. When you add to that claim the fact that Obama has been a member for 20 years of a church that teaches liberation theology (marxism married to liberal catholic theology), you have a better idea of Obama's economics than what he is willing to tell people.
Published: April 8, 2008 10:11 AM
I intend to vote for Obama this Fall. It will make me feel good to vote for a Black man and prove I’m not racist. If Obama wins, it will be harder for socialists to claim that the US is racist, although it won’t stop them; nothing will stop them from making outrageous claims. At the same time, I will hedge my presidential vote with a vote for every Republican member of Congress, and I think a lot of other Americans will do the same.
Now the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are socialists and Republicans are socialist-lite, but each party thinks the differences are enormous. So with a Democrat in the presidency, and hopefully Republicans controlling Congress, gridlock will be restored. The US enjoyed the best government possible under the current system (which is a very low standard) during the 1980’s and 1990’s when gridlock reigned supreme. I’m hoping this next election will restore gridlock in Washington.
Published: April 8, 2008 10:22 AM
In the 1980's, after wife Carol and son Matt went to be with the Lord, I began making short-term lay- missionary trips to Central America (4x), Russia (2x), and once each to South Korea and Israel. My message then, as now; "God's Answer to His own question, 'What is man...?': Earth's Choicemaker." Psalm 25:12 Joel 3:14 KJV
In several C. A. countries we found a rampant idealogy of humanistic collectivist Marxism selling itself to the people as 'Christian' under title, "Liberation Theology."
The resulting damage to faith, governments, and
peoples, and individuals, goes on to this day.
I recently went to Senator Barack Obama's
church's site to read what his 'pastor' teaches - and he obviously supports. I found Liberation Theology & Racial Collectivism (Black) - neither of which is Bible-based, or Christian, or American-principled.
Little is even said in behalf of Christianity other than
superficial camouflage. It is a site dedicated to pure
humanistic error.
The whole site is worthy of analysis, EXPOSURE, and rejection.
Two particular pages are:
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm listed in Contents
and
http://www.tucc.org/talking_points.htm no longer listed BUT AVAILABLE
http://www.tucc.org/ Homepage & Contents
Please see for yourself: Now you know what Obama really believes! Error produces error - and very poor judgement.
Please share with your watchman readers, warrior friends, pastors, & rabbis - and others...
Jim Baxter
a follower of The Lion of Judah
semper fidelis
+ + +
Published: April 8, 2008 11:33 AM
It's pretty obvious that he's a socialist anyway. A stupid one.
Published: April 8, 2008 1:09 PM
Fundamentalist,
If it were David Duke instead of Obama, would you still do the same? I don't see any difference between the two.
Even if Obama were otherwise an exact ideological soulmate of Ludwig von Mises, his hatemongering would cause me to support whoever his opponent was.
Otherwise, I agree with your strategy. One thing though. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that we will get a Republican congress. So should we vote for (ugh) McCain instead?
Published: April 8, 2008 1:30 PM
Keep digging. This is excellent journalism.
Published: April 8, 2008 1:44 PM
It's always interesting and informative to learn the backgrounds of leaders, thinkers etc. Hasn't the Mises Institute just published a remarkable biography of Ludwig von Mises that spends ample space discussing his parents, his brother etc.?
Given that Obama may become the next president of the United States and since it is the natural inclination of politicians to hide beliefs that will make them less electable, Ransom's work is very valuable.
Obama Senoirs socialist leanings and the son's clear curiosity with socialist thought is something that is of significant value in exploring.
We should be grateful that we have someone like Ransom to put the pieces of the puzzle together, since mainstream media isn't going to do it.
Published: April 8, 2008 4:34 PM
"It's pretty obvious that he's a socialist anyway. A stupid one."
That is redundant to readers on this site. I don't think Krugman hangs out here.
Published: April 8, 2008 6:49 PM
" So with a Democrat in the presidency, and hopefully Republicans controlling Congress, gridlock will be restored. The US enjoyed the best government possible under the current system (which is a very low standard) during the 1980’s and 1990’s when gridlock reigned supreme. I’m hoping this next election will restore gridlock in Washington."
First, I don't know what would make you think that the Congress is going to return to Republican rule anytime soon, if anything the Dem majority will probably get even bigger. If gridlock is your idea of heaven then McCain is the only chance, and I'm afraid he would be much to eager to compromise with the democrats on anything other than the war.
Second, even during times of so-called "gridlock" the best result that was achieved was a decrease in the rate of increase in spending and regulation. Nothing was cut, no departments were eliminated, no laws were abolished, and the government continued to simultaneously increase it's revenue and debt. These were only "good old days" in a relative sense.
"Best govenment possible" is certainly a stretch.
Published: April 8, 2008 10:26 PM
"We should be grateful that we have someone like Ransom to put the pieces of the puzzle together".
I'm grateful for the additional information, but as a purported expose on what Obama's political philosophy is or what it is that he admires about his father, it is largely sheer, unfounded speculation.
- "the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father."
What "fact"? Obama's father left him when he was TWO. How could HE have possibly "given" his son any ideals? What it seems he he left instead was a son with an emotional need to justify his father's abandonment of him (to return home to Kenya and get involved in the tribal and political disputes involved with Kenya's liberation from the British empire).
- "So we know that his father's ideals were a driving force in his life, but the one thing that Obama does not give us are the contents of those ideals."
We know nothing of the sort. All that we know is that Obama has idealized his father. What Obama has said in his book (as you cite) is that Obama carried a single "image" of his father, an image that was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230).
Who gave Obama the images of his father? Not his father, but his mother and his dreams. When will we get your exegesis of Obama's mother's views of Obama's father? And his grandparents views of Obama's father? Inquiring minds want to know!
And what does Obama himself say that he has idealized about his father? That his father was imprisoned for his political views by the government just prior to the end of colonial rule, that his father took a position in government, that he was willing to risk that position by direct conflict with Kenya's Big Man, President Kenyatte (sp), and that he was (as his elder half-sister Auma reports) politically blackballed from government and private positions for "tell[in] people that tribalism was going to ruin the country and that unqualified men were taking the best jobs."
It interesting is interesting that, though you quote Obama's half-sister, you brush away her comments on Obama's fathers warnings about the perils of tribalism (for rather flimsy "false notes" that actually support the view that Obama's father was consistently outspoken, despite considerable personal risk), even though it should be painfully obvious from the recent bloodletting in Kenya that tribalism is indeed a very important issue, and that Obama's father was right to be concerned about it.
One might disagree with virtually all of Obama's father's trenchant economic and political views, yet still come away with some admiration - and understand why Obama himself might be looking hard for something to admire in a father who abandoned him.
TT
Published: April 8, 2008 10:27 PM
"Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist"
Not surprised. Lots of Socialist, Marxists, Monetarists, Keynesinist, come from these so-called elite institutions.
Any time I hear the words so-an-so is an Ivy league trained economist...I wince at the implications.
Published: April 8, 2008 10:30 PM
TokyoTom, warning that tribalism is bad is hardly original, but it does show a certain naivety. African states are artificial constructs that facilitate the tribal rivalries to a great extent. Instead of living in relative peace, they now have to fight and die for control of a central government. Or more precisely, to prevent the other guys from controlling it. So Obama senior saying that tribalism is bad is like saying scarcity is bad: in practical terms, the Kenyan government was about as likely to change either situation. Had Obama senior truly been wise, instead of being blinded by socialist goals, he would have advocated decentralization to ease the rivalry between the tribes. In which case I might find some respect for him and the son that idolizes him, but as it stands now, he was just another cold war socialist for whom the state was everything.
Published: April 9, 2008 3:45 AM
Greg, some of them are intelligent... they're just misguided or purely malevolent.
Published: April 9, 2008 7:17 AM
"Who cares what Obama’s Father was?"
Have you lost your mind? For Christ's sake, man: look at the title of his book.
Published: April 9, 2008 8:34 AM
I'm not a big fan of Barack Obama but I would prefer to concentrate on HIS actions and convictions rather than his father's. I disagree heavily with my own father on politics and even more on religion and life philosophy, and still I can see the traits I inherited from him and I can get all fuzzy when I think about all this.
Obama's father left the family when Obama Junior was a toddler anyway. Junior has seen him only a few times in his life. Instead he was raised by his white American mother and a Indonesian father in Jakarta. See http://www.kenya-advisor.com/barack-obama-and-kenya.html
Published: April 9, 2008 8:59 AM
LeV:
" African states are artificial constructs that facilitate the tribal rivalries to a great extent. Instead of living in relative peace, they now have to fight and die for control of a central government. Or more precisely, to prevent the other guys from controlling it."
"Had Obama senior truly been wise, instead of being blinded by socialist goals, he would have advocated decentralization to ease the rivalry between the tribes."
My sentiments, exactly, but they weren`t the purpose of my comment.
Published: April 9, 2008 11:31 AM
So this election season, American voters are stuck with a choice of either a.) a warmongering fascist; b.) a warmongering healthcare fascist; or c.) a slightly less warmongering Marxist.
Everything old is new again!
Published: April 9, 2008 2:52 PM
"...and the two appeared together in 2006 at pubic events."
An L really needs to be inserted somewhere in this sentence (I'll let you guess). Otherwise, great article!
Published: April 9, 2008 5:05 PM
"Greg, some of them are intelligent... they're just misguided or purely malevolent."
"Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forrest Gump
Published: April 9, 2008 8:39 PM
"I intend to vote for Obama this Fall. It will make me feel good to vote for a Black man and prove I’m not racist."
Fundamentalist
Why in the world would a person with an ounce of self respect vote for a candidate to prove their acceptance of their fellow man. This is a horrible X-gen'er disconnect. Know who you are before you bow to the demands of those who demand you be who they want you to be. Exercise personal choice. Do not prostitute your Self for a pat on the head. Please!
My $.02.
Published: April 10, 2008 9:16 PM
Vote for Obama, the Muslim commie. He won't be able to get anything done. If you vote for McCain, he will pull some Republicans across to vote with the Democrats, and real disaster will ensue, after the fashion of Nixon, who wrecked the economy and blamed the chaos on capitalism. As a result of anticapitalist policies instigated by Nixon starting in 1968, and not reversed until Reagan in 1980, the stock exchange fell from 1968 to 1982. Guys, if McCain gets elected, you will not be able to retire. Anybody but McCain! My retirement depends on it.
Published: April 10, 2008 9:30 PM
Point is though that Obama write a book in adulthood praising his father.Now you will see that the father was racist against whites and Asians despite having two white wives.
Hang on though.Obama is actually born of a bigamous marriage .His father was already married to a black woman and had a child when he married Obamas mother .Then he left her when she discovered the fact and he got with another white woman and "married " her too.
Now.....he was also a wifebeater and a drunk and thats according to the Obamas...so why in the world would you write a book in praise of a man that you never knew as a man or as a father ?
And....Obama blames RACISM for his parents marriage breakup......not the fact that he was a bigamist.
Published: April 11, 2008 1:27 PM
sins of the fathers...
had Obama went a different direction then his Daddy - then surely not.
Instead, from his marxist professors, Communist mentor, to racist theology, Obama sought out, by choice, paths to
become the 'image' of daddy.
Post racial? One has to question weather swooners have read his books.
This is not a man who wants to 'cross-over'...
His entire young life was spent manufacturing self-loathing, distancing himself from 'his mothers race' while
fantasizing grievences, and lived all of his adult life in the front pews with those who agreed with his own
perspective of the racist white captors world.
Obama wasn't dupped into joining a Church where it's message - had he known - was unknown to him. If anything this
Church's message was precisely where Barack could finaly fit in, emulating, with his very own views of, Afrocentric
attributes, marxist ideology, and beliefs of victimization.
Published: April 11, 2008 4:18 PM
Obama, Sr's life trials are interesting. As other posters have mentioned, it has little to do with the younger obama.
I believe all have missed one point. The son, not having had a father, was trying to show his father that he could be better at politics, at motivation. In this he has obviously succeeded.
Please accept my most profound apology for having voted for George Walker Bush...twice! The first vote was the most important. I just couldn't vote for anyone from the Clinton camp.
I will be voting for Obama, as the Republican Party must be punished. These are not conservatives! They spent more money, during the last 4 years of
Clinton and the first four years of Bush, than drunken Socialists could have spent in their wildest dreams.
You may believe that the Iraq War was highly justified; or, you may hold a dissenting view, believing the war to be unjustified. No matter your point of view, the facts are that the United States can no longer afford to save Iraq. We will be lucky to save ourselves!
I believe in fighting wars intelligently, and winning! I believe in the concepts of “The Art of War”! Our original war plan violated every respected concept of war! It was cowardly!
George Walker Bush was too frightened to implement a winning war plan. He remains too timid to pump Iraqi oil to pay for our presence there; therefore; you and your grandchildren are presently paying for this war the hard way, through the deflation of your assets, and the inflation of your cost of living.
We are technically bankrupt; as, we do not have the funds to pay this country’s most basic long-term financial obligations. Each dollar for this war is borrowed, payable with interest.
Is the United States bankrupt? Go to this link sponsored by The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; and, an economics professor will walk you through the numbers: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf
We have been grossly mismanaged, for decades. We have been looted by politicians and their plundering cronies.
It became obvious in 2004, that our war plan was hastily sketched by untalented civilian amateurs, not by our highly trained, competent military officers. Why do we bother to spend millions to train such people, if their advice is never heeded?
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." "If the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain." - General Sun Tzu, 500 BC, The Practical Art of War
If we begin to pump Iraqi oil, two things will happen:
First, the world will know that we have decided to get tough with the existing government; and, oil prices will plummet, as we ship a million or more barrels per day, back to the U.S. This will help the world economy, as well as our own.
Second, their political leaders will suddenly realize that they will not have as much loot to divide among themselves, and they will begin to form the needed alliances to achieve the political solutions to get us out of their country.
When you don’t win your wars, you are stuck, defending a line in the sand, the 38th parallel in Korea, paying for 30-55,000 soldiers for 58 years, defending Kia and Hyundai.
We won the war with Japan and Germany; yet, we presently have 40,000 soldiers stationed in Japan, defending Honda, Toyota and Komatsu! We have 101,000 soldiers in Germany, defending Mercedes, VW, and BMW; and, there are an additional 19,000 soldiers stationed elsewhere in Europe. Paying for this, for 63 years, can’t be good management.
80% of Iraq oil exports flow through Basra, a city of 1.7 million. We are already paying for 200,000 military desk jockeys, who are located in many other countries. Why not put guns and brooms in the hands of half of them, send them to Basra, sweep Basra clean of weapons, establish a perimeter, protect and pump Iraq oil; and, the war will end more quickly.
We need answers: Ask the next president, “Do you intend to pump Iraqi oil to help pay for this war?”
Every needless expenditure of one taxpayer dollar…is theft.
Published: April 15, 2008 2:07 PM
I got here from from NYT opinionator so you might get some more traffic. 'I hold in my hand a copy" is a notorious phrase from Joe McCarthy speeches so my conclusion is that your opinions are neo-Mccathyite. i doubt I will be back but the Muslim commie smear is what I expect from the crypto-fascist far right.
Published: April 15, 2008 2:20 PM
It's so nice to see the groundlings fighting the good fight for the slime in high places. People who promote rhetoric and not the real deal (no relation to the New Deal, mind you) are part of the problem, not the solution. . . . (yawn)
Published: April 15, 2008 4:29 PM
This story has now entered the mainstream press. I didn't see any mention of the Mises blog though:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080415/pl_politico/9610
Published: April 15, 2008 4:42 PM
Circulated on "several small blogs" indeed!
Published: April 15, 2008 4:58 PM
djw3505, do yourself the favour of familiarizing yourself with this site and its contributors before spreading nonsense about it.
Published: April 15, 2008 5:58 PM
Hey Greg,
I want to sound half as silly as you. I recon that you are a middle aged man within the same bracket as Obama. That would make your father and Obama Sr. to be within the same age group. Could you please produce any essays your father wrote, post college or in college. What about high school? Nada; because your father never wrote one, he was not educated.
So that makes you the first person ever to attend college in your family. Your types are well known: partly uncivilized, partially unexposed, and never traveled out of the US. To your father, he will stand next to Obama Sr. as an intellectual dwarf. What you lack in good standing or content as a humanoid, you want to make up by spewing hatred.
Today you have benefited from the fine education the public schools can offer, the great equalizer, so you think you can rub shoulders with the great one, one endowed with great intellect and calling for service to humanity.
In Obama Jr. you find two generations of Harvard scholarship, thanks to Obama Sr. a man whose economic postulations even 42 years later still bear credence. This is unique in American presidential history. Such achievements, save to a jaundiced mind, should attract accolades and respect.
That essay was a major find and goes to further clarify Obama Jr. endowment for stewardship and service to society. But instead you are intent on robbing America their moment of stupendous exhilaration. SHAME ON YOU.
You can join your friend Rush who said that he would stop paying taxes if Obama becomes president.
Published: April 15, 2008 6:48 PM
Hey Greg,
I want to sound half as silly as you. I recon that you are a middle aged man within the same bracket as Obama. That would make your father and Obama Sr. to be within the same age group. Could you please produce any essays your father wrote, post college or in college. What about high school? Nada; because your father never wrote one, he was not educated.
So that makes you the first person ever to attend college in your family. Your types are well known: partly uncivilized, partially unexposed, and never traveled out of the US. To your father, he will stand next to Obama Sr. as an intellectual dwarf. What you lack in good standing or content as a humanoid, you want to make up by spewing hatred.
Today you have benefited from the fine education the public schools can offer, the great equalizer, so you think you can rub shoulders with the great one, one endowed with great intellect and calling for service to humanity.
In Obama Jr. you find two generations of Harvard scholarship, thanks to Obama Sr. a man whose economic postulations even 42 years later still bear credence. This is unique in American presidential history. Such achievements, save to a jaundiced mind, should attract accolades and respect.
That essay was a major find and goes to further clarify Obama Jr. endowment for stewardship and service to society. But instead you are intent on robbing America their moment of stupendous exhilaration. SHAME ON YOU.
You can join your friend Rush who said that he would stop paying taxes if Obama becomes president.
Published: April 15, 2008 6:54 PM
Oh yes, SHAME ON YOU for daring to criticize Obama Sr!!! SHAME ON YOU AND HOW DARE YOU! YOU GNAT!
Get real.
Published: April 15, 2008 6:59 PM
Hey Jax and Greybeard,
You come across as though you are abjectly ignorant.
Published: April 15, 2008 8:14 PM
[quote]I intend to vote for Obama this Fall. It will make me feel good to vote for a Black man and prove I’m not racist.
In other words, you are trying to prove you aren't racist by voting for the black guy. I hope the irony of that isn't lost on you.
Published: April 15, 2008 8:23 PM
Tokyo Tom,
Please no apologies on behalf of Obama Sr. His socialist ideals and or prescriptions were quite in order. Matter of factly, he will do the same thing over even with the benefit of hind sight if that were possible.
Published: April 15, 2008 8:27 PM
Stan, nice job of seeing what you want to see.
I make no apologies for Obama's father. My arguments are with the glaring flaws in the argument that culpability for his sins falls on the son he abandoned at age two.
Published: April 16, 2008 12:00 AM
How were they 'quite in order'?
Published: April 16, 2008 7:20 AM
Tokyo Tom,
Please no apologies on behalf of Obama Sr. And those making apologies on his behalf are dead wrong as well. His socialist stance and prescriptions for Kenya were quite appropriate under the prevailing circumstances and historical antecedence of colonization by Britain for nearly 100 years. Those ignorant of history should be reminded that after over 400 years of carting more than 27 million Africans away from their homeland, the Europeans came back in 1882 with vengeance to invade Africa.
The arbitrary delineation of the continent by the European invaders, their exploits, plundering and pillaging to this day is at the heart of the socio political disequilibrium that plagues the continent. For example, the current political turmoil in Kenya takes its root from its colonial history and neocolonial circumstances.
The debate for a rational social engineering to create equilibrium and political stability in the Kenyan society will generally favor the postulations of Obama Sr. Let's face it; the Chinese experiment at communism came in the face of similar historical antecedence. It is paying off today handsomely, economically, politically and militarily. China can mount the world podium any day and wag their fingers at the world. See Dafour and Iran.
Forty-two years later Obama Sr has been proven right about Kenya yet he had paid dearly for it. What a smart guy. By extrapolation, the son will be proven right by posterityon his gospel of Change and healing of the races.
The problem with the neo cons is not so much that they lack deep analytical skills, which occassionally they are bereft of, but rather they have a greater proclivity for peddling half- truths. They’ve exported this viewpoint even on the global scene particularly during the cold war. Those at the receiving end of their prism around the globe often end up with the mischaracterization that America is a racist country. The exclusive claim of the neo cons to the foreign policy domain of the US is a way to exact stranglehold of the means to peddle half-truths around the globe. And boy does this make the good people of America look bad in the eyes of others. Ever wonder why the world opinion about the US is low in spite of all the humanitarian works and care for the human family around the globe?
Greg Ransom’s characterization of Nelson Mandela as a communist is just an echo of the white racist Apartheid Boar regime of South Africa for whom Dick Cheney et al were agents provocateur or advocates. By the time Nelson Mandela was able to define himself to the world community, as a peace-loving reconciler of the races and statesman, he had been unjustly incarcerated for 27 years.
The current attacks by the neo cons on Obama or even Clinton or McCain is also seen in this light of peddling of half-truths.
They can make the choice today to gradually gravitate towards to human family. But knowing them, they are too mired and steeped in their evil ways to look back.
Published: April 16, 2008 11:37 AM
Tokyo Tom,
Culpability of the son for the father's "sin" is really not the crux the matter. The real argument is whether or not there was a rationale to restructure Kenya along the line proposed by Obama Sr. at the time to achieve socio-economic equilibrium given its colonial antecedence. The correct answer, 42 years later, suggests that he was right. Please read my new piece.
Pity, you and a few others fell victim to Greg Ransom’s recalibration of the genius of the old man as an “anti-western” propagationist.
Published: April 16, 2008 12:12 PM
"The debate for a rational social engineering to create equilibrium and political stability in the Kenyan society will generally favor the postulations of Obama Sr. Let's face it; the Chinese experiment at communism came in the face of similar historical antecedence. It is paying off today handsomely, economically, politically and militarily. China can mount the world podium any day and wag their fingers at the world. See Dafour and Iran."
Yes, more social "engineering" is what we need. And here I thought China advanced by liberalizing its economy, not by sticking to communist idiocy.
Published: April 16, 2008 5:29 PM
Don't read the stuff from this hack. (I didn't.)
Read the article:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html
Then listen to those with sufficient knowledge to understand and analyze the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080415/pl_politico/9610
Just look at the title of the article from this purported marxist: BHO talks about the "Problems" not the glory of socialism... but truth doesn't matter when you've got a political agenda you're trying to advance.
Published: April 17, 2008 3:07 PM
And to the illuminated "Inquisitor"... here's some news for ya: Every law is a form of social engineering.
And some forms of social engineering (such as the Feds bail out of Bear Stears) aren't laws, but purported discretionary acts of a bureaucrat.
Have you seen the size of the United State Code, or your own state codes recently? Do you appreciate how much social engineering we employ? (It keeps me and many others employed... and making more money than you!)
The question is never whether or not it's social engineering -- because it all is -- but whether the benefits of the new arrangement/relationships outweigh the enforcement costs.
Published: April 17, 2008 4:19 PM
Actually, it is the legal protection of rights, not "social engineering". I know brain-addled legal positivists can't grasp this. So nice try, fool. Since you didn't read this "hack's" article no one need take you seriously.
Published: April 17, 2008 4:55 PM
Greg, I thought that you might perhaps be interested this important scholarly work by neocon Daniel Pipes, who is concerned that the facts that Obama has a Muslim name, lived in a Muslim country with a Muslim step-father when he was 6 to 10 and was registered in schools as a "Muslim" "deserves careful attention for what it tells us about the candidate's integrity", since it might show that "if [Obama] was born and raised a Muslim and is now hiding that fact, this points to a major deceit, a fundamental misrepresentation about himself that has profound implications about his character and his suitability as president."
http://acuf.org/issues/issue107/080506news.asp
Honestly, I'm not thrilled by much of Obama's liberal agenda, but I got to say that the fact that the neocons will go digging this far into his childhood to pin a "Muslim liar" charge on him tells me that at least Obama is not beholden to the special interests that have so corrupted our foreign policy under the Bush administration.
Published: May 8, 2008 5:27 AM
Obama, Rev. Wright, Nation of Islam are all Muslims disguised as Christians in order to infiltrate and incrementally influence our society.
Published: May 21, 2008 11:47 AM
Milton --- I guess you aren't Milton Friedman's ghost and are sailing under false colors. That's a war crime!I play nothing on the internet.
I speculate that your obvious jealousy of graduates of elite universities is a result of being bumped by some AAAA candidate. Where did you get your educatio0n. Under a bush? Some defunct Mississippi bible college?
You ought to get that jealousy problem fixed. If left untreated it will ruin your life.
Say, why doesn't anybody on this site ever discuss L. von Mises' important contribution to the completion of the edifice of communist economic theory. Not very original and quite derivative, but still necessary to make the vessel warertight.
Published: June 1, 2008 9:44 PM
Why Obama's Father is very important to Barack Obama?
Because he said so. Read the book of Obama and see how he idolise his own father.
The sad thing is that he forgot the good life and opportunity given by his white relatives.
Why important? Because Barack will have a hard time to deny his socialist and communist principles.
So what? Actually there is nothing wrong about it. About 40% of the Americans are now socialists. Vermont is truly the state of the socialists. Illinois is a very socialist state. A California judge said that because Cold War is over, communism is no longer a threat to the republic and communist party can now register.
WHAT IS EXTREMELY WRONG IS FOR OBAMA TO HIDE HIS OWN TRUE COLOR. WHY CAN'T HE ADMIT TO THE PUBLIC THAT HE IS A SOCIALIST?
Who knows, the Americans may now be ready to become one.
In the end, JFK and Reagan failed. Communism has won in the end.
What
Published: June 21, 2008 12:21 AM