Obama's missing college 'thesis' on Soviet nukes

It doesn’t matter whether “thesis” was in scare quotes.

Unless it truly was a thesis, it will not have been preserved. Since it wasn’t a “thesis,” it can’t be found. So breathless conspiratorial articles about it are rabbit trails.

It was an ephemeral term paper. It undoubtedly reflected his radical ideas. Focus on his radical ideas. There’s plenty of other evidence for them. No one is covering up or hiding his “thesis.” Stop using the cheap trick of implying that Columbia is hiding his “thesis” as a tool to get people interested in learning how radical he is.

We have the same goal. You’ll reach it faster if you stop plunging into rabbit holes.

From what I’ve read, it doesn’t even seem to have been a “senior paper” (which usually means a paper not for a single class but as a capstone to one’s studies), but rather a simple paper within a single course.

This may not be exactly what happened, but that’s what I recall from earlier discussions of this.

Yes, he wrote “some kind of paper on disarmament.”

But, darn it, it was just a paper for one course in an affiliated college of Columbia University.

The term papers students turn in in individual classes are pretty lightweight affairs. I know because I’ve grade a hell of a lot of them.

Sure, he might have written a 20-25 page paper for a single class. I doubt it, given his difficulty writing a book for which he was being paid handsomely. But even if he wrote a substantial term paper of 20 pages on nuclear disarmament, so what? It would have stated more or less what any number of average sized articles on the topic in X number of left-leaning journals of the day had to say about the topic.

We know all that stuff already. Collect his other radical statements and make them known. More power to you. But chasing after this phantom major statement of his as an undergrad on nuclear disarmament is a waste of your time and our time.

Reagan used to be a Democrat. Nobody’s going to hold BHO accountable for something he wrote when he was 22

btt

“Columbia College does not require a thesis for any senior, period. I hardly think Obama would spend hours and hours writing a thesis if it were not required coursework.”

You missed my point. Even when a senior honors thesis is not required, students pursue them for the HONORS conferred upon them at graduation. Here’s the description from Department of Political Science:
“The department offers an honors program for a limited number of seniors who want to undertake substantial research projects and write honors theses. The honors thesis is expected to be approximately 60–75 pages in length and of exceptional quality. Honors students perform research as part of a full-year honors seminar (POLS C3998-C3999 , 8 points total) during their senior year, in place of the seminar requirement for majors. Honors students may, however, take regular seminars to fulfill other course requirements for the major. Theses are due in late March or early April. To be awarded departmental honors, the student must satisfy all the requirements for the major, maintain a 3.6 GPA in the major, and complete a thesis of sufficiently high quality to merit honors.”
http://www.college.columbia.edu/bulletin/depts/polisci.php

A student with Obama’s ambition would be quite LIKELY to pursue honors. Thus, the fact that a senior thesis was not REQUIRED is a very thin reed on which to base the conclusion that he never wrote one.

This and the birth certificate topic are really sad (but understandable instances) of flights of desperate fantasy.

Lest you forget, the Left used the simple tactic of attacking from all quarters, all the time.

Yes, Conservatives are either going to have to re-assert themselves in the Republican Party or build a meaningful political machine from scratch, and that can be done.

In the meantime, it behooves us all to leave no stone unturned, and there are a lot of areas which have been deliberately obscured when it comes to Obama's past.

Ymmv, but there is plenty for everyone to do without wasting time and resources crapping on others' efforts.

Obama to Seek Arms Control Treaty With Russia
NYT ^ | 3/31/09 | PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER

Posted on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 11:14:49 PM EDT by Nachum
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2219506/posts

New York Times...

U.S. and Russia to Consider Reductions of Nuclear Arsenals in Talks for New Treaty
By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
April 1, 2009

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to open negotiations on Wednesday to draft a new arms control treaty that could slash the American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by about a third and possibly lead to even deeper reductions, according to administration officials.

As Mr. Obama arrived in London on Tuesday for his first European trip as president, American and Russian officials have privately indicated that they could agree to reducing their stockpiles perhaps to about 1,500 warheads apiece, down from the 2,200 allowed under a treaty signed by President George W. Bush.

The two sides plan to draft the treaty quickly so it can be signed in time to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or Start, which expires in December after 15 years as the broadest legal foundation of Russian-American nuclear policy. Washington and Moscow hope quick success replacing a pact negotiated in the waning days of the cold war will help revive a strained relationship and set the stage for further arms cuts.

“Just setting a new limit would send a signal to the international community in general that the United States was getting serious about its disarmament commitments again,” said Peter Crail, an analyst at the Arms Control Association, a Washington advocacy organization.

Mr. Obama is to meet President Dmitri A. Medvedev for the first time on Wednesday in London on the sidelines of the Group of 20 economic summit meeting, and they plan to announce the beginning of the talks to replace Start. Obama administration officials also said they expected the two to advance cooperation on other thorny issues, including Afghanistan and Iran.

Mr. Medvedev, in an Op-Ed article published Tuesday in The Washington Post, said he was already seeing better relations since Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

“Neither Russia nor the United States can tolerate drift and indifference in our relations,” Mr. Medvedev wrote. He placed blame for the rift on Mr. Bush’s efforts to build a missile defense system and enlarge NATO in Moscow’s former sphere of influence, making no mention of Russia’s war with Georgia last year.

“Possible areas of cooperation abound,” Mr. Medvedev said. “For instance, I agree with President Obama that resuming the disarmament process should become our immediate priority. The wish to ensure absolute security in a unilateral way is a dangerous illusion. I am encouraged that our new partners in Washington realize this.”

American and Russian officials decided to tackle arms control in part because it seemed the least contentious of their issues. The Russians like talking about arms control because it is one area where they remain relatively on a par with the United States. Mr. Bush scorned arms control as the basis of relations, seeing it as anachronistic, and the treaty he signed was so general it came to fewer than 500 words.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, promised during the campaign to restart traditional arms control talks and take “steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.”

“The Obama administration and the president see arms control as an important tool to advance American security,” said Steven Pifer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state under Mr. Bush. “That’s a big philosophical difference.”

Mr. Pifer, now at the Brookings Institution, said Mr. Obama’s initiative could finally bury the cold-war nuclear legacy. “It’s cleaning up some unfinished business that’s been put on hold for the last seven years,” he said.

Of course, opening meetings between American and Russian leaders often begin with hope, only to deteriorate later. In June 2001, when Mr. Bush first met with Vladimir V. Putin, then Russia’s president and now its prime minister, Mr. Bush famously said that “I looked the man in the eye” and “I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

But their cordial relationship degenerated into crisis by last year’s war in Georgia.

The treaty that expires on Dec. 5, Start I, was signed in 1991 before the collapse of the Soviet Union and went into effect in 1994, requiring both sides to reduce their arsenals to 6,000 warheads. Start II was never fully ratified, and a framework for a Start III never went anywhere.

The Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, signed by Mr. Bush in 2002, cut arsenals to the range of 1,700 to 2,200 by 2012, relying on the verification program set up by Start. But it allowed warheads to be stored rather than destroyed, and, unlike Start, it imposed no restrictions on delivery vehicles, like intercontinental ballistic missiles, heavy bombers or nuclear-armed submarines.

The process Mr. Obama and Mr. Medvedev begin Wednesday will essentially be a two-stage effort. Because Start I expires soon and Washington’s latest nuclear policy review is still under way, the first stage will focus on getting a replacement to preserve the inspection and verification system established under Start I, combined with a reduction to perhaps 1,500 warheads.

Then next year, the two sides envision a more ambitious agreement that could reduce warheads further, even to 1,000, as well as limit delivery vehicles and possibly tactical nuclear weapons. Start limited each side to 1,600 delivery vehicles but both have already cut below that. Mr. Pifer said a new treaty could bring each down to 600 or 700.

As they focus first on the Start replacement, the two sides appear relatively close on the overall ceiling, but they face other tough issues, most significantly the counting rules. American officials have signaled flexibility but insist that adopting rules that Moscow wants will require more transparency and intrusive inspections, according to people briefed on the unofficial, preliminary discussions.

Another potential complication is the planned American missile defense system in Eastern Europe to defend against a possible Iranian threat. Russian representatives told the Americans that with a 1,500-warhead ceiling, there might be no need to settle the missile defense issue to reach an initial treaty deal. If they want to go lower, to 1,200 or 1,000 warheads, then, the Russians said, they would insist on constraints on missile defense.

The Americans want to avoid having missile defense thrown into the mix, warning that it would make it hard to get a treaty done in time. At a confirmation hearing last Thursday, Rose Gottemoeller, nominated to serve as the assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance and the chief negotiator for the treaty, testified that she wanted to avoid extra issues.

“In my view, we will keep the agenda tight,” she said. “We will keep it focused.”

Senator Richard G. Lugar, an Indiana Republican, said the treaty would have to be signed by August for the Senate to ratify it by Dec. 5. If it cannot be done by then, the Obama administration has talked about possibly signing the pact before the deadline and extending Start until the replacement can be ratified.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/washington/01arms.html?_r=2&ref=world&pagewanted=print

From "45 Communist Goals":
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

~~Reagan~~ Bill Ayers used to be a ~~Democrat~~ terrorist. Nobody’s going to hold ~~BHO~~ Professor William Ayers accountable for something he ~~wrote~~ did when he was 22

< /sarc >

Hillary Clinton’s ~~old college papers~~ lying under oath repeatedly have certainly not ended her career.

Funny how much she was able to remember a few years later when Viacom paid her $8million to writeabook.

It's too bad the prima donnas of the New York Times were too busy impressing themselves and each other with their "oh so witty" writing to bother to look into something like this...

The NYT's is such a disappointment.

And Charlie Gibson of ABC News - this includes you and your "looking down your nose" and Sarah stuff. Get your head out of your butt and look for something you haven't already "found" a hundred times before...

By Jim Popkin, NBC News Senior Investigative Producer

Sorry about my reply above slamming the MSM - obviously ONE person in the MSM isn't drinking liberal group-think kool aid... Hats off to Jim Popkin.

Hillary Clinton’s old college papers have certainly not ended her career.

Hillary and the Black Panthers: The Real Story
Richard Poe
Tuesday, Aug. 19, 2003

I can't take it anymore. If one more person sends me that e-mail about Hillary and the Black Panthers, I'll have to be dragged away screaming in a straitjacket.

You know the e-mail I'm talking about. It accuses Hillary of helping the Black Panthers get away with torture and murder during the early 1970s. With the 2004 presidential race drawing near, the spam mills are creaking to life, flooding the Internet once more with this agitprop classic.

Unfortunately, the e-mail mingles good information with bad, sowing more confusion than enlightenment. Some versions, for instance, carry the byline of radio talk jock Paul Harvey, who says he did not write it. Such misrepresentations help Hillary defenders dismiss the e-mail as a hoax.

The story is no hoax, though. Its basic elements can be found in respected Hillary biographies and exposes such as Barbara Olson's "Hell to Pay," David Brock's "The Seduction of Hillary Rodham," Joyce Milton's "The First Partner" and Carl Limbacher's "Hillary's Scheme."

Here are the facts:

In May 1969, fishermen discovered the body of Black Panther Alex Rackley floating in Connecticut's Coginchaug River. Rackley's captors had clubbed him, burned him with cigarettes, scalded him with boiling water and stabbed him with an ice pick before finally shooting him in the head.

New Haven detectives learned that the Panthers suspected Rackley of being a police informer. Panther enforcers had tied him to a chair and tortured him for hours. Police arrested eight Panthers and later extradited Panther leader Bobby Seale from California, after a witness accused Seale of ordering Rackley's death. (1)

Campus radicals supported the Panthers. They organized mass protests in support of the so-called "New Haven Nine." Hillary was right in the thick of it.

By the time she entered Yale Law School in 1969, Hillary was already a radical celebrity on campus. Life magazine had featured Hillary in a piece titled, "The Class of '69," which showcased three student activists whom Life's editors deemed the best and brightest of the year. A line Hillary used in her Wellesley College commencement speech appeared under her photo: "Protest is an attempt to forge an identity." (2)

At Yale, Hillary helped edit the Yale Review of Law and Social Action – a left-wing journal which promoted cop-killing and featured cartoons of pig-faced police. (3)

A series of hard-Left mentors introduced Hillary to the brass-knuckle realities of revolutionary activism. As a Wellesley undergraduate, she met and interviewed radical organizer Saul Alinsky, whose Machiavellian tactics she admired. Hillary's senior thesis supported Alinsky's call for class warfare. (4)

At Yale, Hillary found a new Svengali in the form of left-wing law professor Thomas Emerson, known around campus as "Tommy the Commie." Emerson recruited Hillary and other students to help monitor the trial of the New Haven Nine for civil rights violations. Hillary took charge of the operation, scheduling the students in shifts, so that student monitors would always be present in the courtroom. She befriended and worked closely with Panther lawyer Charles Garry. (5)

Some believe that the enormous pressure exerted by the Left helped ensure light sentences for the New Haven Nine. Whether or not this is true, the punishments were mild.

"Only one of the killers was still in prison in 1977," reports John McCaslin in the Washington Times. "The gunman, Warren Kimbro, got a Harvard scholarship and became an assistant dean at Eastern Connecticut State College. Ericka Huggins, who boiled the water for Mr. Rackley's torture, got elected to a California school board." (6)

Hillary's defenders argue that she played no "significant" role in the New Haven Nine's defense. This is semantic hairsplitting. Obviously, Hillary was less "significant" than Charles Garry or "Tommy the Commie" Emerson. But Hillary served as a trusted lieutenant to these movers and shakers. Moreover, she had a national profile as a campus activist. Hillary was no rank-and-file student protester, as her apologists claim.

Indeed, Hillary's work for the Panthers won her a summer internship at the Berkeley office of attorney Robert Treuhaft in 1972. A hardline Stalinist, Treuhaft had quit the Communist Party in 1958 only because it was losing members and no longer provided a good platform for his activism. (7) "Treuhaft is a man who dedicated his entire legal career to advancing the agenda of the Soviet Communist Party and the KGB," notes historian Stephen Schwartz. (8)

The defense of the New Haven Nine marked Hillary's initiation into the sinister underworld of the hard-core, revolutionary Left. To my knowledge, Hillary has never publicly renounced nor apologized for her role in that movement.

Richard Poe is a New York Times best-selling author and cyberjournalist. For more information on Poe and his writings, visit his Web site, RichardPoe.com. He may be reached at richardpoe@....

References
1. Joyce Milton, The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton. William, Morrow and Company, Inc., New York, 1999, p. 35. Barbara Olson, Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., 1999, p. 55.
2. Milton, 1999, p. 34; Olson, 1999, pp. 40-45.
3. Olson, 1999, p. 59-61; Evan Gahr, "Hillary and the Cop-Bashers: Will the Real Ms. Rodham Please Stand Up?" JewishWorldReview.com, June 20, 2000.
4. David Brock, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The Free Press, New York, 1996, pp. 14-17; Olson, 1999, pp. 46, 48, 50.
5. Milton, 1999, p. 17; Brock, 1996, pp. 31-32; Olson, 1999, p. 54-56.
6. John McCaslin, "Hillary for the Defense." Inside the Beltway, The Washington Times, June 12, 1998, p. A9.
7. Olson, 1999, pp. 56-57.
8. Brock, 1996, p. 33.

http://www.legaled.com/hillaryatyale.htm

_________________________________________________________

From the Maoist Internationist Movement:
Black Panther Party [BPP] Archives
Article: "REVOLUTIONARY HEROS"

excerpt...

"On May 1st, May Day, the day of the gigantic Free Huey rally, two of Alioto's top executioners vamped on the brothers from the Brown Community who were attending to their own affairs. These brothers, who are endowed with the revolutionary spirit of the Black Panther Party defended themselves from the racist pig gestapo.

Pig Joseph Brodnik received his just reward with a big hole in the chest. Pig Paul McGoran got his in the mouth which was not quite enough to off him.

The revolutionary brothers escaped the huge swarm of pigs with dogs, mace, tanks and helicopters, proving once again that "the spirit of the people is greater than the man's technology."

To these brothers the revolutionary people of racist America want to say, by your revolutionary deed you are heroes, and that you are always welcome to our camp."

Article: "REVOLUTIONARY HEROS"
http://web.archive.org/web/20060717050055/http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/bpp/index.html

I suspect like other globalists, Madame Halfbright included, that he was against the US being the only super power as we weren’t to be trusted. They wanted the Soviets, now Russia, to have the bomb to balance our power.

That was the early rational for giving away secrets of “the bomb” to the Russians... it was a lame excuse planted by Russians into smart but totally naive American scientists. Russians played on the egos of men who should have known better - telling them they were saving the world by undoing some of the damage created by their awesome knowledge. It was pure flattery and manipulation. Because of these idiot scientists we lived under the fear of total nuclear annihilation for decades. And the Russians spread the information to many totalitarian thugs... I'm surprised anyone is still parroting that old soviet garbage.

I guess the boys at the New York Times aren’t covering any of this because it might be a “game changer” ...

As you know, I am willing to file the known and factual derogatory information on one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. and even discuss it ad infinitum. Had 1/10 of what we know seen the light of day during the Presidential Campaign of 2008, this preposterous individual and his mother-in-law (who at least is a "natural born" citizen) would not be the occupants of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue today.

Of course, during the campaign an Obama-compliant media went nowhere near this information. Perhaps stranger still, neither did the opposing candidate, or the managers of the political party he purported to represent.

So what do we collectively suggest be done with what we know? Tell it to Mike Steele at the RNC? Bring actions at SCOTUS? Fulminate loudly and endlessly and hope the Congressional by-election goes thunderously "our way " in 2010? BTW, what is "our way?"

Does anyone here actually think the same bunch of disgusting toadies and wimps (mavericks and moderates?) who threw away a very winnable election in 2008 are suddenly going to transform themselves into "conservative" champions of truth, justice, and the constitutional American way? With "Open Primaries?"

Perhaps it is time to forget about our conservative Stimulus Package for the Republican Party and let it die. Perhaps a Conservative Party, while not capable at the moment of winning a national election, could be a power broker/strong minority party in Congress.

What we have now is not working. What will? And can the country remain viable while we get it working?

Not that many years ago I heard Halfbright saying that it was dangerous for the US to be the only world power.

Useful idiots. Probably not. America haters if you ask me.

Not that many years ago I heard Halfbright saying that it was dangerous for the US to be the only world power.