No one in the mainstream media has performed the essential function of exposing the details of Barack Obama’s sordid political history pre-dating his 2004 run for the United States Senate. Virtually every other President in modern time has had his life’s history investigated in detail and published, but not Barack Obama, the darling of the liberal media. Barack Obama’s background remains, for most Americans, a mystery. With the publication of former New York Times Magazine editor Edward Klein’s biography, The Amateur, as well as select pieces in other publications, including The Washington Times, National Review, and World News Daily, we can now see that Obama’s education in politics and political affiliations took him not to the far left but beyond, to those who view America as an evil colonial power that has to be humbled economically and politically before it can become part of a grand international community of socialist states.
Klein’s book is filled with details recording Obama’s radical political affiliations. After losing his first run for national office, a failed attempt at unseating Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush from Chicago’s South Side (a former Black Panther), Obama turned to Jesse Jackson for an education on national politics. At his Operation PUSH [People United to Save Humanity], Jackson urged Obama to speak at PUSH every Saturday, which Obama did do, honing his public speaking skills. Although Jackson gave Obama a chance to hone his speaking skills, the ideological direction for Obama, and even the manner in which Obama spoke to audiences, came more from the influences of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the anti-American theologian whose rhetoric is so patently offensive in its condemnation of basic American ideals that it forced Obama chief strategist David Axelrod to cancel Wright’s planned invocation for Obama at Obama’s February 10, 2007, announcement of his candidacy for President in Springfield, Illinois. Obama married Michelle Robinson in Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 1991 but had been a devout follower of Wright for many years before that. Wright advocates Black Liberation Theology, whereby he contends that Blacks are still very much oppressed by Whites in America and calls for a massive redistribution of wealth to give Blacks parity with Whites in what is Marxism along racial lines.
Writes Klein: “Echoes of Jeremiah Wright’s Marxist ideology can be found in many of Obama’s remarks. For instance, when Obama says, ‘I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,’ he is channeling Jeremiah Wright . . . . Wright’s influence on Obama was unrivaled for more than twenty years . . . . Wright became far more than a religious and spiritual guide to Obama; he was his substitute father, life coach, and political inspiration wrapped in one package.”
Obama dutifully attended Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, listening week after week to Wright’s demagogic anti-American sermons such as the following from the pulpit in reference to African-Americans: “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes the three-strike law, and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No! No! No! Not God bless America [but] G_ _ Da_ _ America!” Anyone with an ounce of respect for this nation and of Christianity would find this profanity more than enough to justify severing all ties with Wright and his church, but Obama remained tied to Wright, staying in the congregation and seeking after his advice for over twenty years. This is akin to a White President being closely associated with the Ku Klux Klan. While no doubt the media would excoriate and condemn such a person, and rightly so, when it comes to racism against Whites in the form of Wright’s theology, Obama is given a free pass.
Klein finds ample evidence of Obama’s narcissism. Obama’s narcissism appears to temper his politics, leading him while still re-electable to favor positions less extreme than his heart desires. Many liberals who favor massive redistribution of wealth and a liberal social agenda have been disappointed thus far and therefore describe Obama as a centrist rather than a liberal. Conservatives solidly view him as a liberal who has done more than enough to justify that appellation. Truth be told, Obama is for Obama before he is for the nation, and he is for a European style socialist America before the America defined by the Constitution, but he is constrained from achieving the latter by the former.
Recent evidence of his love affair with socialism is coming to the fore thanks to reporting by The Washington Times, National Review, and World News Daily. In January 1996, Obama became directly associated with the New Party, which is an ACORN-affiliated political party that favors adoption of European-style socialism in the United States. In 2008 and again in recent days the Obama campaign refuted the charge that Obama was actually a “member” of the New Party, but that is a superficial objection. The evidence reveals that Obama closely associated himself with the New Party and also with the Democratic Socialists of America. He spoke at a Democratic Socialists of America event in Chicago’s Ida Noyes Hall Cloister Club on February 25, 1996. He appeared on the front cover of a New Party pamphlet in 1996. WND.com reporter Aaron Klein writes: “While Obama’s campaign in 2008 denied the then–presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party, print copies of the New Party News, the party’s official newspaper, show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.
The party’s spring 1996 newspaper boasted: ‘New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).’ . . . . The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member. New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and ‘encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on voter education and voter registration.’”
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
The fact is, if re-elected and thus loosed from a need to appease the public to achieve re-election, Obama can be Obama. That means he can return to his radical political roots of extreme, anti-American liberalism. What America must fear with the re-election of Barack Obama is that he will bring about changes through bureaucratic means (if not achievable through democratic ones) that dramatically increase government control over everything. Since his earliest days in politics, since his protests in college, Obama has wanted to humble America, to punish it for its alleged exercise of colonial power and to tame capitalism as the Europeans have at the expense of their economies. If Obama is re-elected, he will have virtually no constraint on his exercise of will to achieve those objectives to our grave detriment.
© 2012 Jonathan W. Emord - All Rights Reserved