"The so-called founders..." Is this real? No.

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Friday, October 23. 2009

"The so-called founders..." Is this real? No.

It is a hoax - we were fooled.

From Obama's thesis:

"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom."

What???

Ledeen at PJ discusses it all in Obama and the Constitution; He Has His Doubts.

Update: I hear there is some question about whether this is real. Can somebody find out?

Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 14:32 | Comments (11) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Yet he has at least twice sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. No honor.

#1 NJSoldier on 2009-10-23 14:44 (Reply)

Economic freedom is founded on personal freedom and personal freedom includes the right of property. I own myself and I own what I produce. I own what I trade for: home, clothing, car. I own the things I provide for my family's needs.
The Constitution provides for individual freedom and therefore economic freedom. I am free to produce and trade; I am free to live in the community I think best for my family; I am free to choose what I buy and what I don't. I am free to provide any service I choose that another finds valuable enough to pay for.
This really annoys His Hopeful Changeness and people like him. So they distract me (or would try) with sexual license and similar foolishness. They want me to give up great freedoms for petty license. Then they tell me that whatever I lack is because some "other" took it from me. Not so: I made my own educational and career choices. They were constrained by many things, mostly my own ambitions. All of us are constrained by many things. The economic freedom HHC bemoans is not freedom, it is serfdom.

#2 Geoff Brown on 2009-10-23 15:08 (Reply)

A Townhall blogger says the report is bogus, that the thesis has not been seen or released after all.

#3 Geoff on 2009-10-23 16:31 (Reply)

Well, I'd like to know for sure.

#3.1 Bird Dog on 2009-10-23 16:38 (Reply)

I realize this is a blog and not journalism, but I find this sort of thing rather annoying. If you have reason to doubt that something is a fact, why repeat it? It's not like this sort of information has a short shelf-life. If it's true it's much better information after it has been vetted. Just because he's a lousy speaker doesn't mean he also writes that way. Unless there's some solid evidence of his actual, not-possible-it-was-ghost-written writing to the contrary. Maybe there is and I'm just to damn busy having a job and a life to be aware of it or look it up myself.

If I was in the unscrupulous business of running campaigns I would flood the market with this sort of negative misinformation about my side (at the appropriate times and anonymously, of course) and then play gotcha...which is why I'm not in that business...

#4 KRW on 2009-10-23 17:11 (Reply)

Fair point. Do you have time to find out for us? We'll be happy to print a correction - and we already marked it as questionable.

#4.1 Bird Dog on 2009-10-23 17:17 (Reply)

Hmm, well I just Googled: Obama thesis paper hoax
and this was the first link to come up. Judging by the time-stamp it probably wasn't there an hour ago, though.

#4.1.1 KRW on 2009-10-23 17:33 (Reply)

< crickets >

#4.1.2 KRW on 2009-10-23 21:29 (Reply)

Doh! My mistake. I saw the " Update: I hear there is some question about whether this is real. Can somebody find out?" line was still there but missed the "It is a hoax - we were fooled" until the ignasecond after I hit "Submit".

#4.1.2.1 KRW on 2009-10-23 21:33 (Reply)

After reading one of his books, it was quite evident to me that obama had no regard for the Constitution, said it was an interesting idea, but really not relevant. I did not vote for him.

#5 J on 2009-10-23 18:49 (Reply)

Howdy friends
A key difference between Maggie's Farmers and many progressives is this: Maggie's team responded to the question of a hoax, found it was, and said so in the same place they started the discusion.
Progressives either continue to hide their lies or they bury their acknowledgement of the facts very deep.

#6 Geoff on 2009-10-24 22:02 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, October 23. 2009

"The so-called founders..." Is this real? No.