Ah, those compelling life stories of which I’m heartily sick
We keep hearing that Sotomayor has a compelling life story.
And no doubt she does. I happen to think that most people on earth have compelling life stories. Granted, some are a lot more dramatic than others, and contain elements that make it easier to garner sympathy for their hardships and admiration for their ability to overcome them.
For example, coming up from poverty and discrimination—as Sotomayor has—is one of those factors. And the possibility that she may indeed have been helped along the way by affirmative action doesn’t invalidate her gifts and accomplishments, which allowed her to take full advantage of whatever leg up that affirmative action may have offered her.
Of course, the life story of Clarence Thomas, her predecessor on the Court, featured poverty so grinding and deprivation and loss so profound that it makes Sotomayor’s seem like a cakewalk. We didn’t hear all that much from the MSM about Thomas’s extraordinarily compelling life trajectory way back when, however. That’s because, although his life story was about as compelling as that of anyone in public office since Abraham Lincoln, his politics weren’t—at least, not to the press.
So one of the messages we get about compelling life stories is that it depends what side of the political coin that person ends up on. If it’s the “wrong” side, the story ain’t so compelling, it’s only perplexing: how could a guy like that end up so muddleheaded?
Obama’s story is pretty compelling, too, especially his childhood and early life. Of course, then the record goes blank for quite a while during college and grad school—formative (and potentially compelling) years that one would have thought the press would be extremely curious about. So we also learn that it depends; candidates on the “right” (that is, the Left) side of the issues get to decide what part of their life stories are worth revealing and what not.
Then there’s a person like George Bush the younger. I chose him, but I could have chosen any number of politicians, some of them on the other side—for example, Al Gore. Privileged scion of a political family and wealth, WASPy as all get out—sounds more repelling than compelling, right?
I may get some laughs for writing this, but being the child of wealth and privilege has its own challenges and traps. Just look at the later generations of the Kennedy family if you want evidence, or really at any children of the rich and famous. There are abounding opportunities, yes, but there are also huge opportunities to get lost, either through drugs (or alcohol, as was temporarily the case for Bush) or selfishness or laziness or any number of other pitfalls. And yeah, it’s not going to rate a big “boohoo” from anyone when a person does fall down in that way; no one is especially sympathetic to the plight of someone who has too much. But it still takes strength to recover.
And the children of the famous are often neglected emotionally, in a way that isn’t apparent from studying the bare bones of the life story (not saying this was at all true of Bush or Gore; just that it is often true), and can cause lasting scars that are even deeper than poverty of the more pecuniary variety.
Yes, yes, yes, it’s all a cliche—“poor little rich girl” and all that. But that doesn’t make it less true. And although Bush’s story as a recovered alcoholic is extremely compelling (especially to those struggling with alcoholism), it’s about fighting internal rather than external demons. It’s garnered him more ridicule and even contempt than sympathy or admiration, this time because of a combination of his despised politics and his privileged upbringing.
Bill Clinton was another politician with a compelling story, despite his lack of minority pedigree. Although he was white, he was from the wrongish side of the tracks, with early tragedy and hardship—father died before his birth, lived with grandparents while mother went back to school to get nursing degree, and an abusive stepfather. Clinton milked this tale dry in the 1992 Democratic Convention with his “Man From Hope” biopic (even his home town had cooperated with its own “compelling” name to make his story more dramatic).
Clinton was the beginning—as far as I can recall; correct me if you remember differently—of the blatant and extended promotion of the life story through lengthy film features as part of the nomination process. I know that the attraction of a politician with a compelling story goes back at least to Andrew Jackson (take a look; his early years managed to combine some of the most dramatic elements of Clinton, Lincoln, and John McCain’s stories in one extraordinarily colorful person). But somehow I think it’s gotten way out of hand.
It reminds me of the Olympics. What do I mean by that? I used to be a big fan of the Olympics when I was young, and in the olden days the TV coverage was very straightforward: we watched the unadorned sports. Now, I’m sure there were a lot of very compelling stories there (if the early years of this lady, a personal favorite of mine, aren’t compelling, I don’t know what is). But if those stories were told at all, it was in a brief manner and was very secondary to the athletic competition that was the main attraction.
Somewhere along the line this changed. I don’t know the exact date, but the terms “up close and personal” became a joke because of the dominance of these human interest stories, which came to overshadow the original point of the whole thing, the physical feats. When the ratio of biography to athleticism reached a tipping point I stopped watching.
I’m interested in people and their stories—probably even more so than most. But I hereby go on record as being heartily sick of the glorification of the story over the substance, as though the first makes up for any lacks in the second. I’m also less than pleased with the differential treatment of such stories depending on the politics of the biographee. Don’t expect that practice to change any time soon, though—it’s the triumph of the easily accessible versus the harder business of evaluating a person’s actual accomplishments and what they might mean.
Neo, I have to disagree with the contention that Obama’s life story is compelling. Bizarre, yes, exotic, you bet, compelling, no.
Obama didn’t come up from poverty (despite liberals’ repeated assertions of such). Hell, I went to Punahou, and my family scraped for me to do so. Current tuition at Punahou is over $16 K/yr for K-12, so we’re now talking over $200 K by the time a kid graduates.
So if Obama’s famly could afford to send him to Punahou, they weren’t poor (at least until they’d paid tuition, maybe). Furthermore, the only racial discrimination in Hawaii is directed against haoles, so Obama’s bleatings about that are crap. He was just another mixed race kid in a tony school that’s full of such. I doubt that anyone took the slightest notice of him.
In fact, I’d say that up to the point when he went to Harvard Law and was chosen to edit the law review, he was pretty much nondescript, and below the radar of practically everyone (except perhaps the comrades).
Not exceedingly compelling, but compelling in the sense that it would be interesting to a therapist. Particularly the parental neglect angle, and the searching and then the abandonment by the mother during some very formative years, and being raised by the white grandparents. Room for a lot of turmoil and confusion—not compelling in the sense of inspirational.
Sorry, postscript. To see what I’m talking about re Punahou, visit their website. See if you can find the blond. (There is one.)
Neo, fair enough. I took “compelling” to mean “inspirational.” There is no doubt that the bizarre family history would be a gold mine for a therapist. Just naming a daughter “Stanley” would raise my eyebrows a bit.
From reports, while some Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are somewhat closely questioning Sotomayor, so far they are nowhere near giving her the extremely harsh treatment that Thomas or Bork got from Democrats in past confirmation hearings; a judicial confirmation process that Democrats have turned from what used to be fair and polite hearings, into the equivalent of a mugging–slugging someone in the head with a iron pipe in a dark alley, or into a witch burning.
While I noticed various editorialists warning Republicans that to go hard on Sotomayor would “alienate Hispanic voters for a generation,” I think that turnabout is fair play, and that Republicans should be just as hard on her–while not resorting to their distortions, character assassination and nastiness–as Democrats were on Bork and Clarence Thomas.
Olympic human-interest stories started coming in to hold female viewers. That’s the theory, anyway. I don’t know if it actually works.
Yup you are right about all those compelling life stories that have proliferated like cancer all over the place.
It is really just old fashioned nosey gossip hounding, voyeurism and extreme addiction to soap opera and lack of privacy.
So we have Octomoms and Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin and her family and Survivor and Jerry Springer and enormous piles of stuff peeking into people’s lives, uplifting stories or sordid scandals, it’s all junk food for the mind.
It’s all passive activity, or rather pseudo-activity, we spend hours and hours at it, get riled up, repulsed, amused, astonished: get on message boards and twitter and facebook, like guinea pigs on a wheel.
Reminds me of that scene in Wall-E, where the humans spend their days on motorized chaise lounges, talking endlessly to the screens in front of their faces, oblivious to the outside world.
Of course I just spent minutes writing this comment, so big irony there I guess.
Interesting to reflect on what makes a story compelling. As a depression era baby I had occasion as I grew up to know many adults with compelling stories. Most of them never went to college; many never finished high school. They left school to contribute to support of families. Later, many left school to go to war. Yet, many of them went on to become successful business men and community leaders.
Obama attended Punahou, Occidental College, Columbia and Harvard. Disadvantaged? I think not. It would almost take a deliberate effort to avoid success with that educational pedigree–plus the contacts made at those elite institutions.
Sotamyor attended private schools every day of her life. Disadvantaged? How so?
So, if their stories are compelling it is simply because of their skin color or ethnicity. But, aren’t we supposed to be blind to that?
Cinderella stories.
Everyone likes Cinderella stories. I suspect your complaint has to do with a kind of sloppy sentimental retelling/exaggeration which detracts from the wonder of a Cinderella story. Such wonder ought often be experienced by an audience member via a nod of the head, and a respectful comment to oneself of “Nice”, as in “Nice rise from where you rose from”, or “Nice job”. Respect for accomplishment.
The tellers of the Cinderella story – the networks (Olympics), the packagers of the Clinton Convention film and the Sotomayor Senate testimony (advertisers/political operatives) – do not trust the natural wonder of the Cinderella story (do not recognize, in the story, the natural glimmers of Divinity which require no elaboration). Rather than allowing the audience to experience a respectful realization, i.e. “Nice”, the tellers of the story attempt to wring more sentiment from the audience. In so doing, the tellers devalue the power and integrity of a Cinderella rise. They devalue the wonder which is naturally infused into the story.
The promotion of just about any story into a Cinderella tear jerker is an affront to truth. I suspect the exercise is often carried out by persons who don’t believe in objective truth; by persons for whom all truth is subjective opinion.
Pope Benedict, in his recently released Caritas in Veritate, had something to say about subjective truth vs. objective truth:
I agree with Oldflyer. To me, it’s actually Sotomayor’s parents, not Sotomayor herself, who might have the more compelling story. From age 18–just like Obama–she’s lived the life of Ivy League privilege. Not to denigrate her or O’s accomplishments, but they started out their adult lives in a pretty good spot. In fact, their lives resemble more the life of a very privileged white male of fifty years ago than anything else.
Mostly these stories are so trivialized that they teach you nothing. If you think of Frank McCourt, you find so much more than just poor member of victim group makes good: you get the whole rollercoaster of experiences and emotions. Sometimes the way we celebrate success seems to relegate those who are less talented or choose another path to the category of losers. Success is defined by the Harvard law degree or the gold medal, and it is praiseworthy especially if you started out as a recognized victim.
I agree completely with Neo that the privileged often have a life I wouldn’t want. I am really glad I was a total nobody when I was young. I had no one watch over me to see that I used the right fork. and I couldn’t afford the right labels. I was free to explore and set my own standards. I wove my way among rich and poor, black and white, factory workers and Ivy Leaguers and formed my own opinions. Even now, as an American abroad, I still have a bit more freedom than others in our social set. It is a great way to experience life.
It all falls especially flat for me in light of the recent dem embrace of the elitism thing. The ‘compelling story’ sounds a bit like ‘not a rube like you people’… Neos perspective that it goes back awhile is good in that it shows that is not all it is, but in light of the last few years that was my first take. It is also the way it might sound to others.
How about Millard Fillmore? Fatherless at an early age after his itinerant zeppelin repairman dad was killed after he was kicked into a vat of boiling muselage by a blind, three legged mule, Fillmore ascended the heights of mediocrity at the time to overcome severe mental retardation to become President, a feat only equalled by James Earl Carter.
I think the tiresome things about “compelling stories” is a) they invariably drip sanctimoniousness, b) we’re invited to join in the mindless adulation, and c) one gets the impression that “compelling story” can make up for any shortcomings in objective accomplishment or even ability. (As long as the compelling story involves a Democrat from a favored group, of course. Otherwise, they’re uppity dirtbags who rose above their station. But that’s another story.)
So true. But it’s more than just compelling stories, it’s this entire culture of celebrity, i.e. Madonna, Paris Hilton, etc. When did ‘party’ become a verb, as if it’s just something you do without a special occasion or achievement to celebrate? Remember when there used to be a time between sports seasons and you would eagerly await the next sport to begin it’s season? When football happened in the fall and basketball was a winter sport?
I guess that when news, sports, gossip coverage expands to fill the 24/7/365 cycle, substance gets stretched thin. Bread and circuses, bread and circuses. The media is the message after all.
Not to give offense, but I see these various social malignancies as part of the feminization of the culture.
Men typically are typically more interested in things, ideas, and conflict/competition (war, sports) than they are people; women are generally just the opposite, and if supermarket checkout stands are any indication, constitute the major demographic for celebrity news and human interest stories (not to mention cell phone usage). It’s hard to imagine any man (normal man, that is) being interested in the Octomom story, or Britney Spears’s or Lindsay Lohan’s latest doings or celebrity marriages/ divorces/ affairs/ breakups.
“Compelling stories” essentially amount to human interest stories of people who are commoners, but are becoming celebrities, and thus seem to naturally to the same audience.
Soon I expect politicians to sing the blues to prove how hard they had it.
“…Even now, as an American abroad, I still have a bit more freedom than others in our social set. It is a great way to experience life.”
I’m in the same situation as you, living abroad, in a very different social setting than most Americans typically experience. If your only cues were stateside ones, whether from Hope, Arkansas or from Harvard Law, you’d be lost and also miss out on a lot.
I see a helluva lot of “compelling stories” every day, from the homeless families I see out my apartment window living under the elevated railroad tracks, to the kids begging at the traffic circles, to the taxi driver just off the bus from Madura, who doesn’t know any of the landmarks around here, speaks not a word of English, and is still not that sure about the concept of the motor vehicle. But he’s willing to give it a shot. He gets at least as much credit from me as a child of privilege like Obama or Sotomayor.
It reminds me of the Olympics. What do I mean by that? I used to be a big fan of the Olympics when I was young, and in the olden days the TV coverage was very straightforward: we watched the unadorned sports. Now, I’m sure there were a lot of very compelling stories there (if the early years of this lady, a personal favorite of mine, aren’t compelling, I don’t know what is). But if those stories were told at all, it was in a brief manner and was very secondary to the athletic competition that was the main attraction.
I agree wholeheartedly, Neo. My special pet peeve was the Sunday telecast of either the Masters or the U.S. Open some years back, when the networks chose to highlight, for several years running, the same contender weeping over his deceased father, and reminded us at every opportunity that afternoon how surely dear ol’ Dad would be smiling from above if his son could win the tournament. I probably seem to be an insensitive lout for typing that. But honestly, such “human-interest” angles – well, that one at least – bothered me more after I lost my own father than before.
Incidentally, I bet I’m just one of many readers here who didn’t have to click your text link to know whom “this lady” referred. Great choice.
Hear! Hear! Neo.
You can’t get much more compelling than Clarence Thomas’ life history and yet I detect very little interest in it by any mainstream media. I would wonder what explains that except that it’s all too clear…they’re not interested in his story because he’s black. Ha, ha. Just kidding. They’re not interested because they’re two-faced and hypocritical. But what’s new?
Greetings:
Think what you will of former President George W. Bush, but for me it all boiled down to “punks don’t fly jets”.
I could accept the compelling life stories in the olympics if it weren’t for the constant piano tinkling in the background.
It’s the way that dems are trying to institute nobility again by a back door.
If you go back and read Dumas or even further back and read the Greek myths, nobility is something you were born with, and it had to be proven/tested by being thrown — undeservedly — into trying circumstances. Shepherd kings walked in from their flock and knew how to rule because they were born to it.
I think this is what they’re trying to implant in our subconscious. They’re nobility. They were born to rule, even if they weren’t trained to do it; even if they were “unpromising”. It’s their right.
Heck, just before the election someone seriously tried to tell us this about Obama. About how his ancestors were rulers and so he was born to rule. (Rulers of Africa with one or two exceptions should be sued for malpractice.)
There are these movements abroad in the larger culture and you catch bits of it in movies and plays and books. The individual is nothing without the group. It’s worth subduing the individual to the group. The right ruler can make it all perfect.
I don’t like it.
Shoot, if the only remaining way to become a leader is by suffering through a childhood of poverty and pain, we’ll soon be leaderless, because the Democrats are bringing us a brave new world in which every desire will be fulfilled, every wish granted, by the kindly and attentive government. Oh, well, belay that . . . we already are leaderless!
I’m with you on the Olympics Goo. Though I usually give the Mute Button (electronic elves be praised!) a good workout.
As for the rest, well, Neo, it’s all about FEEWINGS, don’t you know? Hitler said the public was “a woman” and wants to be seduced. Seems our Leftists have decided the same thing.
It’s curious that some compelling life stories have to be torn down, while others are built up. I think you know of who I speak
“If you think of Frank McCourt, you find so much more than just poor member of victim group makes good: you get the whole rollercoaster of experiences and emotions.”–expat
You and Neo have really summed up the problem with liberalism as a thought pattern these days: it only takes note of, makes use of, one side, and that’s the despondent (a vestige of Christianity, I think), when actually, life is a “rollercoast of experiences and emotions.” I choose not liberalism because I choose not to come down on that side, in part because I think wealth and privilege are just as hard, just as potentially destructive, as, though in an opposite way from, poverty.
Let us not forget that Sotomyor’s “compelling life story” (come on, Senator Feinstein’s shameless puffery, her ecstatic telling of the fact that Sotamayor’s grandmother saved up to buy her a set of encyclopedias, for God’s sake!) and Sotomayor’s ‘splainin and rewriting of her statements, are but a small reflection, repeated over and over in the case of many of Obama’s nominees, of Obama’s own “compelling life story”; more full of holes and air than Swiss chess and smelling more ripe each day, and his constant obliterating, ‘splainin, making up and rewriting his entire life story and, indeed, his positions and statements of even a few days or weeks ago.
Of note in this context is the extraordinary development, reported today, that Army Major Stefan Frederick Cook, who had sued to prevent his overseas deployment on the basis that Obama was not a “natural born citizen,” and, therefore, not a legitimate President or a legitimate Commander in Chief entitled to order him overseas, has not been court martialed or deployed despite his objections, but has suddenly had his deployment orders revoked by the Army, this negating his need to go forward with his suit (http://tinyurl.com/nbzoef). Such a resolution is, of course, extraordinary bad for military discipline.
Intent on stopping this suit from going forward, I think Obama & Co. have just made sure that more such suits will be filed. This result will also strengthen and expand citizen’s curiosity, familiarity with and inquiry into this issue. At some point, one of these suits will be tried before a judge who will order that Obama has to produce his original birth certificate and, on that day, our Constitutional Crisis–which courts so far, including the Supreme Court, have ducked–starts, and Obama’s presidency starts the countdown to its end.
P.S.–The shaky, loosening keystone upon which all of the Obama presidency depends is his refusal–at a reported cost so far to him and the DNC of $1 million dollars–to reach into to his bedroom dresser or safe deposit box, and produce the original birth certificate that many of us now have to–and can very easily– produce to even get our driver’s license renewed or apply for a passport. The fact is that, there is no logical reason that he has been so resistant to do this, other than that his original birth certificate proves him ineligible to hold public office for, if he was not a “natural born citizen,” he was not legitimately elected to any of the public offices he has held, and now holds. This would, of course, also explain the extraordinary lock he maintains on every single record that might also mention his place of birth or citizenship status.
At some point, I would imagine and hope, someone with access to some of these records will make a mistake, get greedy or–surprise, surprise–even get an attack of conscience or patriotism, and release records or tell what they know, and the hell with the consequences.
Wolla, that is an amazing story. I’d previously thought that nirthers were off base, but I’m definitely beginning to think that there’s something up with that birth certificate. For deployment orders to be rescinded, no court martial, no nothing…wow.
You want to see mine? No problem. Just saved myself $1 million, I guess.
“Compelling stories” as the feminization of the culture? No. It’s utterly imbedded in our culture, and it was male writers who made it popular, like Dickens.
Horatio Alger made the rags-to-riches story insanely popular in the 1800s. Damon Runyan’s stories from his collected works “Guys and Dolls” were the basis for a hell of a lot of movies because once in a while a guy could make something of himself. (There was even a Shirley Temple flick, “Little Miss Marker” – although it didn’t have the sad ending).
It used to be called the American Dream story – even the lowest-born kid might make something of himself, with hard work to overcome obstacles.
What makes it less compelling is that EVERY athlete has to train hard and Olympians need sponsors because the cost is so high. It’s kind of like “Extreme Makeover”, which no one in my family watches anymore: If your whole community has nominated you for help, it’s because there’s tragedy or terrible circumstances in your life.
Occam’s Beard–of course, the powers that be could just be waiting for the uproar to die down before they quietly court martial the good Major. I noticed, too, that the article I linked to–which ridiculed the whole idea of Obama and the “birther” controversy, Major Cook and his lawyer–snidely noted that the Major’s lawyer was a part time lawyer who is also a dentist; a lawyer who was extremely excited that he won his case (one of his first?) before he even had to go to trial.
This makes perfect sense to me, for I see Major Cook’s lawyer–not a savvy, full time member of the bar, who would know he would put his career at risk and face enormous odds if he took this case–as either not clued in or a naé¯ve fool, as, marvel of marvels–an idealist who actually believes in the Roman legal adage, Fiat justitia ruat caelum, “let Justice be done, though the sky fall,” or as someone who is pretty savvy and not a naé¯ve fool, but who has decided that the risk/reward calculus is one he is in a position to accept.
Thinking about this a little further, I realized that the situation may be more, perhaps much more, complicated that I stated in my last posting above and, there might be more going on here than just the White House ordering something to be done and the military complying.
Based on the polls I have seen and on common sense, I assume that the military in general in this country is not fond at all of Obama, and I am quite sure that members of the military, especially the officer corps, have, many of them, an exquisite sense of their historical, constitutional, legal and ethical position in their relationship with their Commander in Chief. What if, it was not Obama & Co but the Joint Chiefs or the Department of the Army that gave the order for revocation of the orders, or perhaps the JCS or Army did not raise as strong objections to a White House order as they normally would have–despite how “prejudicial to military discipline” such an outcome would be–thinking the risks justified in order to start the ball rolling on a matter that may be of utmost importance for them?
I have written on these threads recently about “tin foil hat territory” and changing our
”consensus realty” perception of what is possible. Up until the advent of Obama, I would have just assumed–I think almost all of us would have just assumed–that it would be almost impossible for a usurper to become President of the United States. First of all, we all would have thought, I bet, that no one would have the “audacity” to try. We would have all thought that the MSM would have caught on early and blown the whistle. We would have all thought that, somewhere along the line, the Federal Elections Commission, or the DNC, or the Speaker of the House–who all have some responsibility for vetting the candidates for President–would have done their duty to our country and stopped any possible usurper from even running. We would have thought that the Courts or the Congress itself would have–at the slightest possibility or hint of trouble-stepped in, and blocked such a fatal blow to our Constitution, our democracy, our unbroken tradition of Presidential legitimacy, and our “domestic tranquility.” But–despite troubling questions and arguably convincing evidence, questions and evidence that should be thoroughly explored–none of them has done their duty and, in fact, they have either disclaimed or ducked their responsibilities, or have actively helped Obama to prevail. We are now and truly, I believe, in Banana Republic, in Hugo Chavez territory.
Thus, the last line of defense for our Constitution and our Democracy is our military–reassuringly the institution that polls consistently show our citizens have the highest faith and trust in and respect for, which is why I find this story so interesting, and why I find Obama’s reaction to the recent events in Honduras so interesting, too.
the compelling stories appeal to the elite academics who have had their heads in the white tower sands so long that they are sterile. they are the sterile cuckoos… all trying to find another life to latch onto that will give them more meaning than what they thought living their current life would give. they sit in little rooms with little lives and to them, meeting an ayers is like meeitn blue beard out of history…
our Constitutional Crisis–which courts so far, including the Supreme Court, have ducked—starts, and Obama’s presidency starts the countdown to its end.
care to look at what russia said would be happening soon to us? a crisis that would affect us down to our roots..(while another one fed that the US will break up in to 6 sections)…
say the truth, hide it with a tin hatter taking it way out…
Nicely said. And a great title, too.
Pentagon orders soldier fired for challenging prez
Army warrior terminated from job after questioning Obama eligibility
this is starting to get real interesting. they are now dropping officers who question things rather than establish facts.
they are asking for blind fidelity.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=104044
The Department of Defense has compelled a private employer to fire a U.S. Army Reserve major from his civilian job after he had his military deployment orders revoked for arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office.
According to the CEO of Simtech Inc., a private company contracted by the Defense Security Services, an agency of the Department of Defense, the federal agency has compelled the termination of Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook.
lots of people dont realize how important this is, even historically.
if germany had this law, hitler woudl never have existed there.
hitler was austrian.
castro was not cuban
and stalin was georgian
anyone care to expand that list?
it shows that its hard for a despot to rise up in a coutnry they were born in and born to. but a foreign entity has no such baggage, do they?
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.
WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
oh.. getting creepier..
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/15/liberal_talker_questions_legitmacy_of_obamas_birth_certificate_hes_lying.html
now left librals are saying he is lying…
Left-wing radio talk show host Lynn Samuels accused President Obama of “lying” about where he was born.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
Dr. Orly Taitz Esquire
I stand corrected, Maj. Cook’s lawyer is a woman.
WAlla… i wasnt correcting you… 🙂
i didnt get a chacne to read what you said, and was just adding the up to the minute stuff.
its nice though that the truth prevailed despite us. 🙂
“It was in this context that I came across the picture in Life Magazine of the black man who had tried to peel off his skin . . . I know that seeing that article was violent for me, an ambush attack.”
Barack Obama describes his racial awakening at age nine and the impact of the disturbing image of a black man driven to self mutilation to escape his blackness (Michael Jackson was just a kid at the time). Powerful images.
Also entirely false. Life never published any such photos.