werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
You can take it at face value, you can research it, or you can just pretend it didn't happen. Doesn't really affect my life either way, and since I find this a good point but not exactly a burning issue, I'm good with all three of those. In fairness though, you should realize that two of those options are generally driven entirely by politics. For myself, this is entirely consistent with what I've read before so I have no trouble believing it - in the agnostic fashion of one who doesn't much care. (Okay, two of those options are driven by politics OR apathy. LOL)Interviewed by whom? What sources? What did they say?
Sorry, but given all the crap tossed at Obama that turns out to be false, I'm not willing to just take this at face value. Whether you like the guy or not, I think some realistic evidence should be provided before damning him. It doesn't make sense that he'd "abandon" his extended family without good reason, even if only for political reasons.
Given his book sales, I'd say he's taken seriously by quite a lot of people. I also see him quoted fairly often. But perhaps his books are just very, very funny.He's also not taken seriously, even by conservatives.
Of course, one could also say that Barack Obama is not taken seriously, even among progressives.
Somehow I doubt George Obama can pick up the phone and reach President Obama, although I'm sure he's tried to make contact for financial assistance before. On the other hand, he had recently met D'Souza and knew his political opposition to his brother. D'Souza is obviously more easily reached since he's not surrounded by a phalanx of political flunkies designed to prevent just such embarrassing contact. George gets the money he needs for his son's medical needs, D'Souza gets a valid political point. Everybody's happy. Compare that to trying to reach the President, remembering that while George is his brother, he's also someone with whom Barack has scant relationship; perhaps they've never met at all. Certainly George is someone with whom Barack has no real relationship other than the blood from what I've seen, even if they've met several times. The fact that he is Barack's brother isn't going to get him through the White House switchboard.So, uhh, did George say he'd ever asked his half brother for help, or does he just think he wouldn't get any, for some reason?
Obviously, the article avoids that point entirely...
Having no one else to turn to can be a state of mind rather than a statement of fact...
It's a good point in principle, that Obama preaches we're our brother's keeper while he's not even his real brother's keeper. He can't possibly be ignorant of his extended family's dire poverty as it's been recorded numerous times. It's also true that most people probably don't see a burning ethical obligation to provide charity to a brother one doesn't know, or at least, not at a level above that charity owed a stranger, even though the concept of his brother living in such abject poverty when Barack could so easily lift him out (to at least Kenyan middle class standards) seems sad. And progressives (and Marxists) are fairly consistent that individuals don't have responsibilities, groups do. (At least, not responsibilities beyond feeding government.) Frankly I can't see this as much of an issue either way. Should he help his brother? Probably. Does it make him a bad person that he doesn't? Not really. It's more that helping our family is one of those things we should probably all do more often that most of us do not and the Messiah is right in the middle of the pack with us.