Friday, October 17, 2008

Who Is Barack Obama?

We know that young Barack Obama came under the influence of the ideas of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky was a communist who taught, as I understand it, that socialists should become part of the capitalist power structure in order to destroy it from within.

(I have my doubts as to how effective this theory is. Once you become part of the power structure, and your livelihood, your mortgage payments, your future and your children's future all depend on that structure, would you want to destroy it? The system changes radicals before they can change it. Gaining power in our mixed economy would turn communists into fascists. At worst, socialists would work to destroy everything but their power and their 401k's.)

The still unanswered question about Obama is: what does he want? Does he secretly intend to destroy capitalism from within? Or does he want power to further the welfare state like your garden variety Democrat? How radical is he?

We know one disturbing thing about Obama. He is willing to lie in order to gain power. He said Ayers was just a guy in his neighborhood. That was a lie. He said he did not know Jeremiah Wright was an anti-American radical. Larry Elder writes,

In "Dreams from My Father," Obama talks of attending the "Audacity of Hope Sermon" (pages 292-293). There is an audio book in Obama's own voice reading this passage. Obama hears Wright speak of Hiroshima and Sharpeville as examples of acts of injustice....

What is Sharpeville? In 1960, the South African apartheid government shot down unarmed protestors, killing 69 black men, women and children. Most of the dead were shot in the back, and nearly 200 more were wounded.

Obama felt no sense of outrage to hear Hiroshima and Sharpeville mentioned in the same breath. Indeed, he was so inspired by the sermon that he uses the sermon's title -- "Audacity of Hope" -- for his second book, and as the theme of his campaign!

I would have run from Wright. Only an anti-American radical would liken Hiroshima to Sharpeville. Obama forged an alliance with the man, then lied about it when Wright became politically inconvenient.

Rush Limbaugh made an interesting observation of Obama yesterday. Obama is being praised for keeping his cool in the debates. Rush said Obama is not cool, he is cold. This is true. He keeps his emotions so controlled that he comes off passionless and reserved. It makes him hard to read. He seems to have made a conscious decision to create a persona of "presidential temperament," which is a front intended to reassure voters that he is no wild-eyed radical. It makes me more suspicious that he is hiding his true intentions -- which brings us back to my original question. What does he want?

I've linked to this several times, but we would do well to remember it:

His mild-mannered style has thrown off even some angry black radicals, who want him to speak out more forcefully about the legacy of U.S. racism and economic inequality.

One is Princeton professor Cornel West, a militant black and self-described socialist. Reportedly, West was reluctant to join the refined Obama's presidential campaign until Obama took him aside and explained to him that he had to walk a rhetorical tightrope to reassure whites. West is now solidly on board his campaign as an adviser.

Another thing worries me. We have seen in Obama's campaign a brazen new approach to political success that seems to be working (Obama's election as President will be the fruit of this new approach). Here's how it works. Obama will lie and depend on the MSM to let the lie rest uncontested. Then he will accuse his opponents of lying, which is taken up by the MSM and the left side of the blogosphere. Finally, Obama's opponents are smeared as racists or full of hatred if they stand in the Messiah's way.

The lies and smears are part of the totalitarian contempt for reason on the left that has been around a long time, but never before have we seen a candidate so willing to lie (and so good at it) coupled with a media so willing to make his lies the accepted "narrative." The left believes that the truth is irrevelant; politics is the conflict to establish your narrative over your opponent's narrative. The next step will be shutting up conservative talk radio and developing a brown shirt force to use force and intimidation against all those capitalists too blinded by greed to understand that they exist as sheep to be sacrificed to the state.

(The foolish George W. Bush has given statist Presidents a new tool to use in any ginned up "crisis":

On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. The new law allows the President to declare a “public emergency” at his own discretion, and place federal troops anywhere throughout the United States. Under this law, the President also now has the authority to federalize National Guard troops without the consent of Governors, in order to restore “public order.” The President can now deploy federal troops to U.S. cities, which eliminates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. In short, Bush can now declare Martial Law anytime he pleases.)

Another troubling trend has been the collapse of the conservatives. As altruists they are intellectually helpless against any expansion of state power framed as helping the needy among us. Every year fewer conservatives bother to oppose big government. The more voters depend on government handouts, the harder it is for politicians to advocate any cut in spending.

The trends on the left and the right indicate that we are entering a new period in America. This new period will see the spread of state power and the death of our freedoms, one by one.

Whether or not Obama consciously wants to destroy freedom in America -- and I think that as a "blank screen" he has become more a mixed economy Democrat than any communist -- the welfare state is doing it anyway, crisis by crisis.

11 comments:

Bill Brown said...

I don't get the Objectivist infatuation with Obama. Peikoff suggesting we vote Clinton instead of Bush I, I get that and I even did it. Kerry instead of Bush II, I can see it. But Obama is pure poison. As I said on another blog's comments, did I miss a "It's Time for the Gulch" memo? I'm behind on the Peikoff podcasts: can someone tell me which one said that?

The cult of personality surrounding Obama is far more troubling to me than McCain's sop to the religious right (Palin). Coupled with the move towards an imperial presidency pioneered by Bush and the general pragmatism of the populace, it's not outlandish any longer to think that Obama could move closer to a Der Fuhrer model. If he wraps it in the right optimistic tone, I'm not sure there's anything he couldn't get away with.

And the Republicans, by and large, couldn't stop it given their unprincipled nature. It sounds crazy to me but it's like the pieces are falling into place. There are plenty of ominous parallels here between Obama and FDR (not Hoover, as idiot McCain thinks) but we're much further away philosophically from the Founders than we were during FDR's presidency. I think Obama has potential power that FDR lusted after but had taken away or checked.

And FDR didn't have the benefit of a "racism" smear in the chamber, which can be a very powerful trump card.

Patrick Joubert Conlon said...

Obama may only be a soft Marxist but his cult followers are Stalinist thugs. McCain may be a statist but he is not a communist thug.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Bill Brown here. It really is 1932 again (whether Washington or Munich, take your pick).

I'd also recommend Melanie Phillips excellent and brief piece on Mr. Obama in the UK Spectator in which she writes:

You have to pinch yourself – a Marxisant radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshipped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it’s considered impolite to say so.

Read the whole thing at: http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2293196/pinch-yourself.thtml

IchorFigure said...

There is also a tenuous article suggesting Ayers may have ghostwritten Obama's book for him.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/evidence_mounts_ayers_cowrote.html

Richard said...

And there wasn't even a Reichstag Fire to justify the co-opting of so much power in one national leader's hands!

From the Wikipedia link above:
"The day after the fire, Hitler asked for and received from President Hindenburg the Reichstag Fire Decree, signed into law by Hindenburg using Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended most civil liberties in Germany and was used by the Nazis to ban publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause."

joe said...

Joe Six-Pack Speaks:

www.JoeSixPack.me

mike18xx said...

> I agree with Bill Brown here. It really is 1932 again

No; it's 1929 again.

Dismuke said...

"On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed into law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. The new law allows the President to declare a “public emergency” at his own discretion, and place federal troops anywhere throughout the United States. Under this law, the President also now has the authority to federalize National Guard troops without the consent of Governors, in order to restore “public order.” "

The one small comfort we currently have in that regard is that most members of the US military, at present, despise the likes of Obama and the Left. I am not sure that most rank and file troops would stand by and turn their guns against the American public - i.e., their families and friends. The thing to watch for is for an Obama administration to politically "cleanse" the military. Another possibility is for them to create a rival military, of sorts, that is loyal to the Left and has a primarily domestic focus. Such a military would probably be formed under the guise of "national service" and its "training" would mostly consist of political indoctrination. When that starts to happen - well, that will be time to get REALLY scared.

The one potential bright spot is if all this comes to pass - well, the American public will get a taste of what totalitarian government is like for the first time ever. Tell an average American about how statist and authoritarian the Democrats are - well, unfortunately, most Americans think one is being "extreme" or exaggerating. They simply cannot grasp the mindset of thugs and give Leftists a benefit of the doubt that they have not deserved in a very, very long time. It may very well be that what we are seeing is the very last gasp of the Left. In their desperation and euphoria of the prospect of gaining back the power they have lost and the power they have never had but have always lusted for, they are becoming more and more obvious as to who they REALLY are. The Walter Duranty media is playing cover for them - but eventually even they will no longer be able to whitewash and cover stuff up. There is the possibility that the American public will turn on the Left in a very big way.

Myrhaf said...

The creation of a rival military that you speculate about sounds like the "civilian national security force" that Obama calls for here:

http://kalapanapundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/comrade-obama-advocates-american-kgb.html

Richard said...

OR
...is the Obamamilitia a further development, whether by conspiracy or not (my view is "not quite"), of the KGB strategy explained here by Yuri Bezmenov (say "Bezz-menyov").

Note that the Muslims, long supported by the Russians, are using the exact same strategy!

Grant Jones said...

It is 1972 all over again, but far, far worse because the character of the American people has degenerated. As Rand wrote about that election "who cares about Nixon?" It's not about McCain anymore. It's about what's left of the American sense of life.