THE OBAMA ENIGMA

by: brian watt | published: 11 29, 2010

In August 1939, Joseph Stalin, on behalf of his Soviet Socialist regime secretly authorized a non-aggression pact with Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist regime, what came to light immediately after the war as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. A few months after the pact had been signed, Winston Churchill in assessing Russia's complicit behavior amidst the spreading Nazi aggression, surmised that Stalin’s motives for entering into to a possible agreement was to safeguard Russia by establishing a buffer between Germany and Russia by mutually carving up of Poland in an effort prevent a quicker Nazi advance on the Russian front, if that ever came to pass. After the war it also became clear that the non-aggression pact was the first step in laying the groundwork to establish a post-war Europe that was controlled by Germany in the western portion of the continent and Russia in the eastern portion. Half of that equation, a consolidation of Soviet client states, the greater USSR, became the sad, dark reality after the war. In a matter of twenty years during the Cold War, however, Western Europe quickly outpaced the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in every aspect of productivity and standard of living. Of course, the USSR seemed to be bogged down from nuisances like a network of gulags, state-sponsored murder, genocide, starvation, and liquidation and general bureaucratic incompetence and corruption. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

In October 1939, when repeatedly asked to make sense of Russia’s behavior vis-à-vis the Nazis, Churchill said to his fellow countrymen, “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.” The key that Churchill alluded to turned when Hitler unleashed his forces on Russia in 1941 that by the end of the war cost Russia in excess of 20 millions of lives in the effort to defend the Soviet state.

Churchill’s marvelous phrase has been applied to any amorphous conundrum that has vexed political analysts since. It can be aptly used to describe Barack Hussein Obama whose actions often confound even seasoned political analysts, and whose past has been deliberately obscured, deliberately embellished, and deliberately distorted to present a player on the American scene apparently worthy to hold the office of President. But it is all a masquerade.

Several books and articles have been written on the riddle, the mystery and the enigma of Barack Obama but perhaps two recent works begin to bring this man into better focus, namely The Roots of Obama’s Rage by Dinesh D’Souza and Radical-in-Chief by Stanley Kurtz. Both books compliment one another. While D’Souza’s work emphasizes a pivotal moment as revealed in Obama’s first autobiography, Dreams From My Father, where on the grave of his Kenyan father, Obama assumes the mantle and mandate of his anti-colonialist/socialist father’s dreams, hence the title of Obama’s book, specifically to dismantle western colonialism and bring forth a socialist state to America, which to D’Souza is to Obama’s thinking the last perceived colonial power. The force of D’Souza’s argument is quite compelling but one is left with the feeling that this epiphany at the grave was the sole, or soul, motivation for Obama’s rage, his understanding of the world and his desire to fundamentally transform it. Obama’s quite floridly written episode at his father’s grave occurred in 1988. What D’Souza fails to spend a good deal of time on is Obama’s embrace of Marxism at least a full eight years prior to visiting the Kenyan gravesite.

Sometime after he began attending Occidental College in Los Angeles, young Barry (not yet Barack) Obama met one John C. Drew. Both students at the time were avowed Marxists, according to Drew (Drew has since cast off Marxism and become more mainstream in his worldview). As Drew began to engage Barry Obama in conversation that became a fairly spirited debate, it became clear to him that Obama was not merely a young idealistic student intellectually intrigued with the notion of Marxism or socialism but rather already a committed, in his words, “Marxist-Leninist” who in the course of their discussion expressed that he was determined to transform America, even radically transform it if necessary.

In Radical-In-Chief, Stanley Kurtz begins his painstaking examination of Barack Obama here and quite rightly notes that even before leaving Hawaii to come to Occidental Obama was tutored in Communism, Marxism, socialism by Frank Marshall Davis, at the time either a current, or for self-protection measures, a former member of the Communist Party of the USA. This would certainly explain the passionate and determined Marxist-Leninist that John Drew encountered at Occidental. Doubtful that Obama received his Marxist revelation while flipping through an in-flight magazine from Honolulu to LAX.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, the nation got ever-so brief glimpses that the junior senator from Illinois may not be exactly what he presented himself to be. His remark to Joe, the Plumber, that “when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody” was a tease. Obama’s mysterious past aroused Kurtz’s curiosity and when he began connecting dots, the Obama campaign machine didn’t just refute Kurtz’s findings but attempted to discredit Kurtz himself.

Most members of the mainstream media had already been mesmerized by the messianic figure of Barack Obama and little to no serious reportage or investigative journalism took place to connect dots further to explain this amazingly fast rise to national prominence by someone whose name only two years before would have confounded most Americans. Of course, many Americans, as Jay Leno had demonstrated, can’t name the Vice-President, the Speaker of the House or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and believe that New Mexico is actually part of Mexico…well, on that last point they may be partly right.

In the Fall of 2008, the riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma and his surging popularity absolutely dumbfounded the Rhodes scholar, Bill Clinton, who was watching his dream of his wife becoming the first woman President of the United States crumble all around him. In a moment of frustration he, not so privately, conveyed to Ted Kennedy, that, “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” The possible inherent racism of the comment aside it was probably intended by Clinton to exclaim, “Where in the hell did this guy come from…in so short a time?” I realize I’m being gracious here but my interpretation of what was burning in Clinton’s mind was that Hillary had a lock on the White House until Barack Obama seemingly appeared out of nowhere.

In Radical-In-Chief, Kurtz is methodical and repetitive, taking his time working through Obama’s lost college years at Columbia attending the Socialists Scholars Conferences in New York; as well as his years as a community organizer in Chicago and Obama’s application of Saul Alinksy’s aggressive tactics, despite Obama’s denials to the contrary. Kurtz clearly points out that the radical socialist movement evident in New York in the mid-1980s, was bent on re-energizing the flagging radicalization of the late 60s and to counteract a conservative movement and mood in the country led by Ronald Reagan, the scourge of 60s radicals in California. The socialist hierarchy as exemplified by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven knew that one of the most effective ways to dismantle capitalism was to move aggressively into community organizing at every level and to commandeer every social, ethnic and religious group and in the process, and if at all possible by using American’s taxpayers’ own money to do so. Of course, nowadays, friendly checks from George Soros certainly help, too. Obama admitted to attending at least two and possibly more of the socialist conferences in New York, where community organizing was the hottest of topics and the role Obama concluded would be his chosen profession prior to moving to Chicago, at least for the time being, before Harvard Law School and a career in Illinois state politics.

The only issues I have with D’Souza’s book, is that he does appear to take Obama’s Dreams From My Father at face value or at least as a sincere recollection of his life or feelings and actions at various stages in his life, particularly the scene at the grave of his Kenyan father; and that he doesn’t adequately address Obama’s life and radical associations prior to 1988 in any great detail. Kurtz, on the other hand, does explore this period of Obama’s life in great detail and points out what a deceptive piece of work Dreams From My Father is; being riddled with characters whose names have been changed or amalgams of people that Obama knew fusing two personalities into one — all the influential socialist friends and colleagues who gave Obama a hand or revealed to him the shining path — whose identities Obama deliberately chose to obscure. One has to ask the question, what President in American history in writing about himself chose to deliberately obscure or distort the nature of his past associations, friendships or distort incidents in his life?None of Obama’s professional relationships are happenstance. His relationship with Jeremiah Wright also wasn’t coincidental or serendipitous. Kurtz documents the aggressive Marxist agenda that Wright and his other religious associates had been engaged in over the years prior to Obama’s meeting him and becoming a 20-year congregant in his church. In other words, Obama didn’t just happen to stumble upon Jeremiah Wright’s church by running his finger down the pages of the Chicago phone book or strolling around Chicago streets. His decision and allegiance with Wright was calculated and for mutual benefit.

For someone, anyone with aspirations to rise to higher office, State Senator, the United States Senate or the Presidency, one would assume that the aspirant would have so much pride and affection for those who brought them along that the last thing they would do is to obscure their identities unless of course they have something to hide. For Obama to not reveal the full name of erstwhile communist, Frank Marshall Davis and refer to him only as “Frank”, speaks volumes. To not reveal the identities of others should have been a significant red flag, as it were, to any serious journalists covering his campaign in 2008.

What Kurtz, through very diligent scholarship – poring through university archives, records from the Harold Washington mayoral office in Chicago, public records, agendas of socialist meetings and seminars, news accounts of ACORN, and UNO (United Neighborhood Organization) – points out that Obama’s radical and Marxist associations weren’t just happenstance and certainly not a thing of the past as his administration appointments as President clearly indicate. By his own admission, Obama “chose to surround himself with Marxist professors” and as the current occupant of the White House he has continued the practice. His policies clearly underscore the most radical Leftist agenda from any President in the nation’s history that by logical extension grew out of a radical Leftist past. It’s unreasonable to assume that the Obama-driven legislation for socialized medicine under the guise of healthcare reform, more centralized control of the financial markets under the guise of financial reform, is somehow borne from the Chicago School of Economics. It’s more reasonable to conclude that it has arisen from the Chicago sharp-elbowed street school of socialist community organizing.

In the end, one can only conclude that Obama’s Dreams From My Father is nothing but artful deceit meant to create an image of a thoughtful and fair-minded budding politician and hide a more insidious socialist, who with other unnamed socialist friends, mentors and colleagues, believes that America should be fundamentally transformed into a socialist state. Kurtz attempts to find that pivotal moment in Obama’s life when he cast aside his adherence to Marxist ideology to embrace a free enterprise, capitalist worldview. He can find none. Obama, of course, has espoused his love for American capitalism but his actions and his other comments belie his words and his radical socialist past only hurts his credibility on this front further.

D’Souza’s book is helpful in clarifying Obama’s strange behavior toward Britain and Israel and his belittling attitude about the non-exceptionality of the United States. In matters of foreign policy, D’Souza’s anti-colonialist thesis works quite well. The question of whether Obama’s anti-colonialist fervor is being fueled by his father’s dreams of retributive social justice amidst a failed life of alcoholism, recklessness, the loss of his legs and eventually his own life all both as a result of drunk driving, all presumably stemming from British colonial oppression and the Kenyan embrace of capitalism; or whether Obama supplemented his already fervent Marxist-Leninist ideology with an anti-colonialist worldview is worth exploring. Frankly, given Obama’s timeline and Marxist tutelage in Hawaii, at Occidental, in New York and in Chicago as a community organizer, I’m inclined to favor the latter explanation.

Those inclined to dismiss both explorations of Obama and claim that the 44th President of the United States may have indeed been a Marxist or socialist or just flirted with these ideologies in college but matured and moved on and became a more balanced thinker, I believe can only make that claim if they haven’t read either D’Souza’s or Kurtz’s books, or in the case of commentators like Chris Matthews have no interest in them or plan to debunk them read or unread. It’s doubtful that Mr. Matthews will ever crawl out of the Obama tank. Perhaps he’ll always be stuck in the tingling, charismatic ooze of Obama.

One final point in closing. Since Obama exudes, for the most part, a calm and logical demeanor, unless he’s, in the parlance of Al Gore, snippy, one might conclude that those more radical passions of the past have been successfully submerged in the recesses of his persona. One must consider his recent call to “fight our enemies” a nasty unforeseen noxious belch from Obama’s socialist intestinal tract. After all, his presentation to the American people was at least in 2008, that of a mature and well-spoken, reasonable fellow who wanted nothing more than to bridge the partisan divide. His partisan fusillades through the heat of battles on healthcare, during the oil spill and his anti-corporate rhetoric about the rich and fat cat bankers stood in stark contrast to the Obama of the 2008 campaign. One could logically conclude that the Obama of 2008 was a calculated and contrived clone of the real Barack Obama, which after all gave to him the prize that radical Marxists have been salivating over for decades, the Presidency. After seeing this Jekyll and Hyde transformation, after reading The Roots of Obama’s Rage and Radical-In-Chief or having listened to any of Obama’s speeches, press conferences or base campaign messages to his base for the past two years, it’s hard to imagine that this man is anything but a socialist.

That said, it begs the question now what kind of socialist? A socialist in the mold of Joseph Stalin or Mao? Probably not. Unlike, these two paragons of virtue, Obama may feel that the world is finally ready for a new version of socialism not encumbered with a network of gulags, state-sponsored murder, genocide, starvation, and liquidation. But rather a version of socialism that smiles and hugs corporations while only putting the boot (or golf shoe) to their throats when absolutely necessary. In Obama’s view, Stalin and Mao, some of his advisers’ adoration of these ghouls notwithstanding, probably went a bit too far and essentially blew it, the ‘it’ of course, being the achievable socialist utopia.

Barack Obama is still, by all appearances, obsessed with fundamentally transforming America, redistributing wealth on a mass scale and meeting out retributive justice. Note, how recently his rhetoric has shifted from the phrase, “fundamentally transform” to simply “progress” – progress now the preferred code word for “socialist state”. His record of contributors as a senator certainly attests to his need for corporate America to fund his socialist dreams from his father and/or dreams from his own indoctrinated imagination. There must be entities to create the wealth that his version of socialism consumes and redistributes.

I encourage you to read these two wonderful books and the listen intently in the next two years, to what Obama says. Watch what he does and see if it conforms to what D’Souza and Kurtz have said about him. I think you’ll be amazed at how spot on they are. I don’t think there can be any doubt about Obama’s love for the idea of Marxism over and above the idea of America, so much so, that the American idea must be consumed by the Marxist idea. There’s also no doubt that Barack Obama is intelligent and clever. He will continue to deflect, dodge, distort and deceive those troubling aspects of his past and the current actions of his administration. My bet is that he will present himself as even more reasonable than before – at least in front of the cameras. If you’re still holding out hope for transparency in the Executive Branch, give it up. That ship has sailed. But at some point all masquerades come to an end. Riddles and mysteries are solved and what was once thought of enigmatic becomes quite obvious – even to the talking heads on MSNBC. Lawrence O’Donnell has recently outed himself as a socialist and has taken it upon himself to out Obama, as well. Now it’s up to Obama to out himself but even if you want to reduce your carbon footprint…don’t hold your breath that this will happen anytime soon. My guess is Obama will attempt to maintain the masquerade as long as he can and will start stealing lines from Ronald Reagan. Well, there I go again.

Those inclined to dismiss both explorations of Obama and claim that the 44th President of the United States may have indeed been a Marxist or socialist or just flirted with these ideologies in college but matured and moved on and became a more balanced thinker, I believe can only make that claim if they haven’t read either D’Souza’s or Kurtz’s books

comments

• Reply to this comment

  Brian Watt

  Thanks Dr. Drew for validating my reference to you in this article and perhaps more importantly thanks for giving America a glimpse of what Barack Obama was like when you encountered him. It gives us a much better understanding of who he is today.

  All the best.

  
  

• Reply to this comment

  John C. Drew, Ph.D.

  I do want to add that it was unusual for a sophomore to be such a 100% committed Marxist revolutionary type at Occidental College. I'm thankful that David Remnick's The Bridge came out after I made by comments to Ronald Kessler. The story, as it evolves, is moving closer and closer in the direction I indicated to be true than in the direction of Obama's narrative in Dreams.

  
  

add a comment