Friday, 09 December 2011 14:53
Barack Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, has certainly made waves. Well-received by the mainstream media, The Baltimore Sun wrote that the President has finally found “his voice” while the ever-dour Bill Press said that Obama was “channeling Teddy Roosevelt.” Yet if talk-show host Rush Limbaugh is correct, the President was channeling someone also long-dead but a lot more red. The radio giant asserts that Obama has “outed” himself, in that he has “announced to the world in no uncertain terms that he is a socialist, if not a Marxist.”
What did Obama say that brought cheers from the Left and jeers from the Right? Among other things, he stated that our relatively free enterprise system not only “doesn’t work” — “it has never worked.”
The first thing to note is the blindness and ingratitude evidenced by this statement. Our nation enjoys wealth unprecedented in man’s history, with its supermarkets stocked with thousands of products from the world over; and with how its “poor” people usually have cars, TVs, cellphones and other luxuries, as well as bellies that come out and greet you. So while “never worked” may describe Obama’s constituents, it can hardly be said about our system.
So our system shouldn’t be on trial here — Obama should be. But is it really fair to suggest he may be a Marxist? Or was there evidence for it all along?
Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?
Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.
In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”
Drew doesn’t believe the President has changed, either, and I agree. I explained why in a follow-up to Kengor’s piece, writing:
Some may say that a person can change markedly over a 30-year period. This is true.
…Yet a transition from flat-out "Marxist-Leninist" to someone who rejects the red menace is a pretty big change, don't you think? In fact, wouldn't such a personal evolution — some might say revolution — be a kind of conversion? I think so.
…There's an interesting thing, however, about conversions.
You hear about them.
You see, a conversion is a sea change, a rebirth, a turning point in your existence. You may become, as Christians say, a new creation, and you're at least a reformed old one. And you reflect your new state of being and often want to voice it.
And those around you will know about it.
As for this writer, everyone who knows me would say that my religious conversion was a seminal point in my life.
Now consider something. Barack Obama is one of the most famous, most discussed individuals on the planet.
But we have not heard about any soul-changing conversion in his life.
Not a whisper.
Nothing.
Nothing that could reconcile the flat-out Marxist-Leninist Obama was in his college days with the man he supposedly is today. There's no one who says, "Yeah, he was a radical guy in his youth, and I just couldn't believe how he became disenchanted with his old ideas."
Why, my friends, might this be?
Now, something else about conversions is that they often breed a person who hates what he has rejected as much as he once loved it. This is why ex-smokers can be the most ardent anti-smoking activists or why Christian converts can be the staunchest critics of secularism. But from Obama we see no visceral contempt for communism. What we do see, however, is a man who just a few years ago had an alliance with former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers, who called himself a “small c communist” and was caught on tape saying that 25 million capitalists may have to be killed to advance the Marxist program. Even more damnably, Obama appointed communists to office upon taking power. One of these was Van Jones, another man who called himself a communist; and former communications director Anita Dunn, who said that Mao Tse-tung — who murdered 60 to 70 million people — was one of her two favorite philosophers.
Unfortunately, for some people, this still isn’t enough to see a red flag and menace with regard to Barack Obama. Yet it doesn’t take a behavioral scientist from the FBI to draw proper conclusions from his profile. We have in the President a man who:
1. Had communist Frank Marshall Davis as childhood mentor.
2. Was a flat-out Marxist-Leninist in college.
3. Has no known history of renouncing these views.
4. Later in life built an alliance with a “small c” communist and other assorted radicals.
5. Upon achieving high office, appointed avowed communists to his administration.
Given this profile, what is the radical position? That the man is a communist or at least a communist sympathizer? Or that he is just your everyday moderate politician?
Perhaps we don’t have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would stand up in a criminal proceeding for either of the above propositions. But asking for it is unreasonable and irresponsible. In the court of public opinion, there must be no higher burden than in a civil court: a preponderance of the evidence. And a preponderance of it in the President’s case points to a simple conclusion: Barack Obama is likely a communist or communist sympathizer.
Now, there are many reasons why people would deny what is plain about Obama. The most obvious is partisan loyalty, but there is another factor: The “it”-couldn’t-happen-here mentality.
We see this when people are shocked to learn that a neighbor is a serial killer or child molester and say that “he seemed so normal” or when there is a heinous crime in a neighborhood and residents just can’t believe that “it” could happen in their little Mayberry. In the example relevant here, an American President could never be a communist sympathizer. Sure, you read in history books about such leaders attaining power in places such as Cambodia, Russia, and North Korea. But the US of A? “It” is something that happens to the other guy’s nation.
Of course, this isn’t reality. Say what we will about American “exceptionalism,” the fact is that we receive no special dispensation from the laws governing man. There is no “it” that can’t happen here. And while we don’t vote for our next-door neighbor, we do choose our President. We’d be wise to make sure that, some years hence, we’re not witnessing disaster with our mouths agape and left saying, “But he seemed so normal.”
Source: @TNA
