10/28/2008 (11:42 am)
This will probably be the end of my analysis columns about the election, since the election is now upon us. However, the most-read posts I’ve written to date (here and here,) raise the possibility that Obama was a modern communist rather than a Democrat, and I feel the need to post my conclusion about the matter. It’s not likely that this will have any impact on the election at this point; the matter I’m discussing really exists in the public mind only in the discussion of Joe the Plumber, who unintentionally revealed Obama’s core desire to redistribute the nation’s wealth. But I want to finish the job.
Thanks to the work of Stanley Kurtz from the National Review and a handful of others, we’re finally getting a clearer picture of the Barack Obama who wants to redistribute wealth. The big picture seems to be that Obama really is some sort of neo-Marxist, and that for about 20 years he’s been cooperating in a tight-knit Hyde Park collaborative including Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Rashid Khalidi, aimed at inserting their radical, anti-American point of view into American government and culture. The amount of effort he’s put into the attempt to hide this, the efforts to silence or discredit anyone who attempted to research it, and the embarrassingly transparent lies he’s told and continues to tell about these connections, merely emphasize how important he feels it is that we not look into it. He knows perfectly well who he is, and he knows that what he’s telling the American people about himself is a bold-faced lie.
Andy McCarthy spells out what we know about the Obama – Ayers – Khalidi connection. The links in his article provide the necessary support, but I want to draw attention specifically to this Hugh Hewitt interview of Stanley Kurtz, the dogged reporter who’s done the Herculean labor of researching all these details. Kurtz details actual collaborations between Obama and Ayers, links Khalidi to Ayers, and even provides some detail about ACORN’s role in creating the current economic mess. McCarthy also links to Kurtz’s work tying Obama to ACORN (and describing some of ACORN’s “public interest” efforts that will chill your blood a bit,) and his work tying ACORN to the subprime lending crisis. Given the fact that ACORN grew out of the National Welfare Rights Organization, and that the NWRO deliberately attempted to destroy capitalism by overloading welfare rolls, it’s not impossible to imagine that the subprime crisis was a deliberate attempt to take down the economy and gain power for an authoritarian government that would enforce Marxian economic policies. It’s by no means proved at this point, but it’s hard to see how they could have accomplished it better if they had planned it, and the tactic is consistent with the historical intent of the organization, so…
Kurtz is very cautious in saying “This is what we’re sure is true” about Obama working with Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but in fact, it’s likely that they’d already been collaborators for almost a decade by that time. Ayers coordinated Mayor Richard Daley’s School Reform Project back in the late 1980s, and Obama headed the Development Community Project, one of the organizations being coordinated, at the same time. They had to know each other back then by virtue of that project association. Also, Sidley Austin, the law firm that employed Obama when he graduated from Harvard, employed both Bernadine Dohrn and Michelle Robinson, who later become Michelle Obama, during that same period. There are other connections as well, through partners at Sidley Austin and through Mayor Daley’s office; you can piece them together from the time line at Conservative Politics Today, among other sources that have plumbed these waters.
The specific connection to Ayers has never been the basis of my claim that Obama was a radical. It was not the presence of a single, specific radical in Obama’s circle of friends that led me to that supposition. Rather, it’s the fact that I haven’t found any major influence in Obama’s life that did not come from among the radical left. His mother, his grandparents, his father, his step-father, the mentor of his teen years, his college buddies, his early employers, his sponsors, his professional collaborators… all from the hard left, no exceptions. Try to find one that was a mainstream Democrat, let alone a Republican of any stripe. There are none, not until he engaged himself in Chicago machine politics, and then his only associations with them were aimed at maintaining and gaining power. And even then, his close associates were radicals, not Democrats.
What the Ayers – Khalidi connections do is give us a referent for what Obama genuinely believes. One naturally acquires the worldview of the people among whom one grows to maturity. It’s possible to break out of that worldview and acquire a different one — I did it, after all, my family of origin is Jewish and mainstream left — but it does not happen without a crisis of conscience of some sort. Obama has written, not one, but two personal memoirs; that he could have had such a crisis of conscience and not mention it in either memoir is simply not believable. He did have epiphanies, and he documents some of them; but none of them suggest any reason to think he’s thrown over the radicalism of his upbringing and environment. Ergo, we have to assume that he holds to the anti-capitalist radicalism of his upbringing, and that his beliefs are not far from those with whom he collaborates — like Ayers, who pukes at the thought of capitalist America. Let’s not forget that Obama has publicly supported all the major goals articulated in Ayers’ publicly-promoted educational reforms. Let’s not forget that Obama has been lying and launching slime attacks to make sure no attention is paid to Ayers.
Obama’s public pronouncements are transparently intended to garner as many votes as possible. It’s not uncommon for a politician to shade his views to appeal to the largest possible segment of the population during an election; it is unusual for one to change so many of his positions so transparently as Obama has done over the last year or two. Since we can’t take his public stances as anything but press fodder, and since Obama will not tell us much of what he genuinely believes, we have to look to his associations. He’s been collaborating with Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi for 20 years, and trying to hide the trail; we can take it for granted that his own views match theirs pretty closely. Forget whether Ayers cares whether he bombed the Pentagon or not; that’s not the point. Pay attention to the America-hating, black-separatist-supporting, authoritarian radical that Ayers is today. Pay attention to the extreme, pro-Palestinian, America-hating radical that Khalidi is today. You’re looking at Barack Obama.
3 Comments »
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Slander Gene?
[...] last 2 years in order deceive the public and win an election; readers who are new here should begin here, here, and here for background information. Be that as it may, however, one finds it hard to [...]
[...] are in such a hurry that we don’t have time to follow the rules,” Obama’s hidden but real neo-Marxist background and his Alinskyite training and tactics, and the recurring suspicion that his demolition of [...]
[...] Recall that the outcome of the election-year research into the Ayers-Obama connection was that the two of them, along with Rashid Khalidi, had operated in a tight collaboration for at least 20 years, and probably longer. They share a common philosophical background, a common view of the world, and common policy goals. Barack Obama went to great lengths to hide his association with Ayers, lying outright and organizing slander assaults and legal challenges to prevent anybody from discovering their common activities. I wrote about this on the eve of the 2008 election. [...]