Catholic
 Apostolic
 & Roman
Christian Order
Read Christian Order
Contents
Editorials
Current
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1990s
Features
Main Page

 

June/July 2009

THE OBAMA TRANSITION

THE EDITOR

- Part I –
 Barack Breaks Through

“Barack Obama’s ties to the left are familial [and] generational.”
NIGER INNIS

 

Since hindsight is a wonderful thing - 20/20, as they say - we can be sure that on 20 January 2009, somewhere in eternity, Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson was kicking himself. As Second Coming hysteria engulfed the million strong crowd in the Washington Mall he must have wondered how he got the pigmentation of his Lord of the World so horribly wrong; how in 1907 he had missed the dramatic possibilities of a black Antichrist. Had he depicted his fictional son of perdition, Julian Felsenburgh, as an African-American president, instead of a white American diplomat, we might have seen some of those Mall placards denouncing the Obamanation instead of lauding the Obamessiah.
Certainly, Obama-Felsenburgh comparisons are plentiful enough. And with culture of death credentials second to none, including a 100% approval rating by the sulphurous National Abortion Rights Action League, the adulation afforded the 44th president is not only hard to stomach, it smacks of something preternaturally perverse.

Media divinisation

The Democrats in cahoots with their liberal media brethren had been stoking the worshipful atmosphere for months. While Time magazine was comparing Obama to Christ, Democrat Steve Cohen was doing likewise on the House floor, stating last September that while Sarah Palin was a governor like Pontius Pilate, “Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus.” Left unsaid, as ever, was the anti-Christian inspiration for the “community organizer” role fashioned by Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky, who dedicated the first edition of his Rules for Radicals to “the very first radical… who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.” A Catholic who knew Alinsky recently claimed that he came to regret the dedication. A hollow lament considering those he personally formed in this rebellious Luciferian spirit, who in turn hired men like Obama as community organizers: teaching them how to generate conflict and strife through appeals to a spurious social justice, in order to achieve political control.

Cartloads of such disturbing baggage duly buried, the divinizing of Barack took root during the Democrat primaries, burgeoned through the election campaign and peaked at the $150 million presidential inauguration. In light of Mr Obama’s dire warnings about the credit crunch and deepening economic crisis, the monumental hypocrisy of the price tag was a flashing neon sign of things to come. Yet the same critics who had hammered George Bush for spending only a quarter of that amount in 2004 were suddenly not bothered.

According to the Media Research Center, the mainstream media tried to make the 20 January festivities a “national moment far beyond just a typical inauguration.” In fact, commentaries bestowed a mystical significance. For one ABC reporter, “even the seagulls must have been awed by the blanket of humanity.” Andrea Mitchell on NBC spoke of how the mass of flickering cell phone cameras on the Mall seemed like stars shining back at Barack Obama. ABC Nightline called it America the Beautiful.

In short, after due ridicule of George Bush - MSNBC’s shamelessly partisan Chris Matthews likening the departure of the Bush family to the Romanovs fleeing the Communist revolution of 1917 before their execution - the media knelt on their prayer mats to bow to their messiah.

No hymn of praise was too great. Emmy award-winning PBS commentator John Ridley even declared that the first 43 white presidents were not really “true” Americans. Ridley, a black American, stated that despite all the “grand rhetoric and mostly good deeds” of former presidents, “none was able to seal the deal on the trifecta of equality, plurality and socio-economic ascendancy. Obama has. Obama is the more perfect union. He is a house united. Obama is the new generation and the hot light of a dawn… Quite simply, quite plainly, just by virtue of his being, Obama is America, and the first true American to lead our nation.”

Messianic fervour

These surreal outpourings by the liberal commentariat reflected the scenes of idolatrous devotion up and down the National Mall.

“Oh, my God, I just saw him and I swear my heart nearly stopped,” gushed a 58-year-old psychotherapist as she waited at a traffic light close to the White House. “He was looking right at me and I’m sure he was waving at me personally. For a few seconds it was really hard for me to breathe - it was the shock and thrill of seeing him so close.” Her lawyer husband standing beside her smiled indulgently.

Braving bitter winter weather, they came to pay homage. A sober 82-year-old nuclear scientist of Greek extraction told a reporter: “I have full confidence in him. Obama is a Godsend to this country and I think he can do what he says.” Said a nursery school teacher, “I’m just glad that he’s here.” So great was the demand for memorabilia bearing the saviour’s smiling face that some stores were selling nothing else.

“As Barack Hussein Obama II rose to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States,” enthused one report, “the great human tide gathered below him… hugged and kissed and punched the air in triumph. With tears streaming down their cheeks, however, some simply clasped their hands and raised their eyes to the heavens in silent prayer.”

Nor was this ecstasy a parochial affair. The euphoria extended to the four corners of the earth. Women in traditional African garb had even travelled to Washington from the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo; a mere glimpse of the miracle man on one of the 20 giant screens along the parade route enough to justify their trek. Such devotion embodied a global love-in lifted straight from the pages of Msgr Benson’s portentous novel.

“He made but one gesture,” wrote Benson of Felsenburgh’s triumphant London address, “that drew a kind of sob from the crowd, he spoke those words slowly, distinctly and in a clear voice; then he stood waiting… that strange heart-shaking silence fell again. Many were weeping silently, the lips of thousands moved without a sound, and all faces were turned to that simple figure, as if the hope of every soul were centred there. So, if we may believe it, the eyes of man, centuries ago, were turned on one known now to history as JESUS OF NAZARETH.” (Indeed, a Harris Poll conducted on 2,643 adults in the week before the presidential inauguration saw Barack Obama actually top Our Lord as the #1 personal “hero” of Americans.)

Everywhere, the intense emotions which tied the citizens of the world to the hypnotic Felsenburgh seemed to take flesh. Obama themes echoed throughout the world.

“Moneygall welcomes our President, Barack Obama,” read the road signs around one Irish village, which baked a special round fruitcake, called a “brack,” to sell for the occasion. “Kenyans are very happy because their son is going to be the leader of America,” said the Africans as they feasted, slapped Obama’s name on the local beer and erected neighbourhood movie screens to watch the inauguration.

At the United Nations complex overlooking the Danube River in Vienna, someone wrote Obama’s cringeing catchphrase “YES, WE CAN!” in giant block letters in the snow. U.N. workers peered down at the message from their office windows. “It’s a mystery who did it,” whispered one. In London there were dozens of parties throughout the city and Americans were admitted free to Madame Tussaud’s, where they queued to be photographed with the new Obama waxwork. Owing to his Muslim parentage, and despite his failure to denounce Israel’s devastating Gaza offensive, the emotional bonds even extended across the Middle East. An “overjoyed” jewellery store owner in Saudi Arabia said, “I felt that he could understand Arab suffering. I love him despite his silence [on Gaza]. I feel we share the same blood.”

Meanwhile, in Sweden, they held “A Gala for Obama,” featuring dozens of Swedish soul, jazz, hip-hop, gospel, folk and blues artists. “Obama fever is all over the whole world,” said the organizer. “I think what he stands for needs to be celebrated. We’re doing songs about hope.”

Stripped of its supernatural essence, “hope” was the recurring catchword. “From Kenya and Indonesia, where Barack Obama has family ties, to areas around the world,” noted a typical report, “Obama represented a volcanic explosion of hope for better days ahead. The ascendance of the first African-American to the presidency of the United States was heralded as marking a new era of tolerance and possibility.”

“Citizen of the world”: man of peace

If all this mirrored the devotion induced by Julian Felsenburgh on his lightning global jaunts, it owed much to Obama’s own rapid-fire European tour last July when he touched down in several countries in quick succession, assuming the mantle of President and world peacemaker before his own country even had a chance to make him one. A blend of unnerving arrogance and slapstick (think Austin Powers) the inexperienced young lawyer from Illinois stepped off a plane emblazoned with “Change we can believe in” to warn the European elite that “The world is in a critical moment.”

Regally draped in his Burberry suits, his smile as white as his box-fresh shirts, the German media dubbed him the “Black JFK.” Holding forth before a Berlin crowd of 200,000, he spoke of his father, a goatherd in Kenya, then his grandfather, a cook for the British during colonial rule, before declaring: “I come to Berlin as… a proud citizen of the world.”

Just as internationalist Felsenburgh held the crowds spellbound with talk of universal peace, cooperation, unity and tolerance, Obama urged Europe to stand by the US in confronting nuclear proliferation and the “climate change” apocalypse - even while racking up a carbon footprint of 10,000 air miles in seven days! But no one was counting. Bewitched by the rhetoric, they were too busy cheering passages of humanistic pap, which, although lacking substance and the ring of authenticity, were tailored for sheep without a shepherd; a godless generation yearning for a plastic leader and a comfortable cause.

“People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment,” cried the Obamessiah. “This is our time. A new generation - our generation - must make our mark on history. … The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down. … People of the world look at Berlin – where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. … Partnership and co-operation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.”

Black Tuesday

The same vapid themes coursed through Obama’s inaugural address. Faced with the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the nation had to choose “hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.” It was a moment to recall “that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” His Berlin plea for the tearing down of walls was regurgitated, expressed this time as an end to “worn-out dogmas.” All part of his “re-making of America.”

If this ominous double-speak was not disturbing enough for those familiar with St Paul’s warnings about the lying “son of perdition” [2Thess. 2], the newly inaugurated president wasted no time baring his teeth and reinforcing those fears. Literally within minutes of taking his oath of office, the official White House website was updated and the wicked truth behind the slippery verbiage laid bare.

A veritable wish list of fascist-Left ideology was systematically ticked off one by one under the heading, “The Agenda: Civil Rights.” At the top, and in keeping with Mr Obama’s implacable advocacy of killing babies both in and ex utero [CO, Nov. 2008], mothers were to be granted carte blanche to execute their preborn children: “President Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.”

In other words, following the lull of the Bush years, every womb was re-declared a veritable death chamber: to be enshrined in law by Obama’s stated intention to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which will legitimize the mass killing of preborn children as never before, criminalising opposition to such genocide and providing tax dollars to promote it.

If the internet offered ‘Sensorama,’ the fearful stench of death would have steamed off the White House web page as it further announced Mr Obama’s commitment to: facilitating the adoption of more children by sexual perverts; introducing “hate” crimes legislation to protect such degenerates from criticism while simultaneously granting them special rights (denied to other Americans); repealing the Defense of Marriage Act to allow blasphemous sodomitical “marriage” and “ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples”; passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to force Christian business owners to accept sexual perversion; legislating the production, manipulation and destruction of human life through deadly embryonic stem cell research such that it cannot be overturned by future administrations; corrupting kids through contraceptive sex education and “distributing contraceptives through our public health system.”

There you have it: the nub of Mr Obama’s programme to dismantle Christian America in order to “re-make” it in his own radical image. The indecent haste with which the wicked agenda was declared in cyberspace will forever mark 20 January 2009 as Black Tuesday: not a celebration of the smiling Black Messiah but a day of infamy signalling his perverse and destructive intent.

The falsity of the man and the disingenuous outpourings of his inaugural address was immediately exposed. He had lambasted “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents,” yet as UK pro-life leader John Smeaton asked: “What else is abortion than slaughtering innocents?” He banged on about “unity,” “happiness” and “tolerance,” but renders all three utterly redundant by murdering preborn children and stamping on the beliefs and sensibilities of the Christian majority. Commenting on the extremist litany, Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel, and a Board Member of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, put it well:

[These are] policies that elevate deviant sexual behaviours and dangerous sexual behaviours that are destructive spiritually, physically and emotionally, and certainly - when embraced as Barack Obama has embraced them - are destructive societally. Well, the high-sheen veneer and ‘cult of personality’ euphoria surrounding Barack Obama looks to be dissolving rather quickly. While millions had hoped for a political ‘messiah,’ it’s rapidly becoming evident that, instead, we’ve stuck ourselves with an extreme leftist ideologue whose brand of ‘change we can believe in’ is, in reality, ‘change we never imagined.’

For all the talk of ‘hope,’ ‘change’ and ‘coming together,’ it’s becoming abundantly clear that Barack Obama’s administration will likely be the most leftist, divisive and discriminatory in recent memory. I suspect the immediate, stark and ‘in your face’ changes made to the White House website are a metaphor for what we can expect, in terms of policy, from his administration.

The gravity of this situation cannot be overstated. Right out of the shoot, Obama has told the world that he is signing off, without exception, on every demand of the extremist homosexual and transsexual lobbies. The radical homosexual agenda and religious and free speech liberties cannot occupy the same space. It’s a zero-sum game. When 1-2 percent of the population is granted special rights based on deviant sexual proclivities and changeable sexual behaviours, to the detriment of everyone else, that’s called tyranny of the minority. People of faith and those of you with traditional values: hold on to your hats - it’s going to be a bumpy four years.

Only four? The socialistic Franklin Roosevelt, whose example Mr Obama will emulate, did not cure the Depression, never managed unemployment under 13 per cent and even triggered a second-term recession due to his over-regulation, yet still managed to win four successive elections. So strap yourselves in because that bumpy ride will probably be eight years - even if, as seems likely, he bankrupts the country!

Good news!

That’s the bad news. But don’t despair. The good news is that we can all rest easy. For despite a Google search on the subject yielding over one million hits, including entire blogs convinced of the fact, Barack Obama is not the Antichrist!

Yes, similarities with Msgr Benson’s depiction of the Lord of the World are uncanny. And, yes, as Cardinal Stafford truly says, Obama is “apocalyptic.” Yet not only is the smarter, smoother, creepier Felsenburgh a far more plausible depiction of the son of perdition than Barack the baby-killer, anyone who witnessed Mr Obama’s stammering post-election victory address, or the nervous fluffing of his lines while taking the presidential oath, or his numerous gaffes during the election campaign (covered up by the mainstream media) should have recognized the presence of a mere diabolical “shadow” - since the real Antichrist will not do stammers, fluffs or gaffes! [“End Times”, CO, Aug/Sept 2007]

Nor does Mr Obama’s embarrassing transition period, the most shambolic and scandal-ridden in memory, augur well for the sort of consummate success which saw Felsenburgh achieve permanent world peace, total disarmament, establishment of the cult of “humanity” and the institution of the “law of profession” - which obliged citizens of the world to renounce the Christian God and profess belief in man’s divinity, and in the divinity of Felsenburgh himself. Now that’s the Antichrist!

I also doubt that the actual “man of sin” [2Thess. 2:3-4]  will have a Kenyan stepmother who lives in a one-bedroom council bungalow in Bracknell, frequents the Gala bingo halls in Woking and Slough and supports Manchester United, as does the delightful Kezia Obama, the first wife of the President’s father, Barack Senior. I would expect a far more solitary figure, too, not a married Antichrist with kids who lavishes five-star treatment on his relatives at his presidential inauguration. But perhaps it’s just my limited imagination?

In any event, according to scholar Yves Dupont, an expert on Catholic prophecy and related patristic writings, only after a divine chastisement and a subsequent Age of Peace (the Age of Mary, says Dupont) will the Antichrist arise, proceeding to charm the boots off everyone before taking enslavement and torture to undreamt of heights. Given the turbulent state of the world, this take would indicate that he is not due anytime soon. Deo gratias!

Furthermore, as significant and deeply symbolic as it was on the historic level, the emergence of Mr Obama was not quite the unforeseen, earth-shattering Second Coming the media made it out to be. For the record, Martin Luther King predicted a fairly rapid emergence of a black president.

During an interview with the BBC’s Bob McKenzie in 1964, McKenzie pointed out to King that Robert Kennedy had said he could “imagine the possibility of a Negro president of the United States within perhaps 40 years,” and asked: “Do you think this is at all realistic?” King responded: “I am very optimistic about the future. Frankly, I have seen certain changes in the United States over the last two years that surprised me. I have seen levels of compliance with the Civil Rights bill and changes that have been most surprising. So on the basis of this I think we may be able to get a Negro president in less than 40 years.”

Almost bang on cue, Mr Obama was sworn in.

Mediocre non-entity

On top of all that, and despite the hype, Barack Obama has never been viewed as a dominant persona but, rather, as a front man. “I don’t think he’s likely to be a strong leader simply because he hasn’t been in the past. He sort of let himself be used as a symbol,” contends attorney and scholar James Kalb, author of The Tyranny of Liberalism. “He’s always tried to present himself to people so they could breathe their dreams into him, so I haven’t been too surprised by his actual actions. He’s relying on other people to sort of carry the ball and decide specifically what has to be done, rather than pushing forward his own vision.”

Participants in a recent political forum at Regent University, which featured a panel of eight political science scholars from both liberal and conservative universities, shared this view. An audience of more than 500 took part in a survey which asked them to project and anticipate how great President Obama will be. Responses ranged along the full spectrum but he averaged out as an “average” president. They did not expect from Obama the sort of greatness one might attribute to an evil genius.

As well as lacking the sort of outstanding natural talent that would put him on the road to Lincoln or Reagan status, Mr Obama is also devoid of political experience and achievement. This crucial aspect of his candidacy was all but censored out of election reportage by the Democrat’s media lackeys. Indeed, perhaps the most blatant cover-up/lie in a presidential election campaign which plumbed new media depths of mendacity and bias, was to portray Mr Obama as more experienced and competent than his antithesis, Sarah Palin. Yet it is a matter of public record that while she possesses only a fraction of their wealth, she has more leadership expertise and has racked up far more political results than Obama and his inept deputy Joe Biden combined!

Among many other notable successes, some of which I listed last November, just one result alone - the $40 billion natural gas pipeline Governor Palin pushed through in Alaska - puts her out of sight of both men in terms of epochal achievement for her country. With Russia and Iran currently setting up an international cartel, a gas OPEC to control gas production worldwide and kill competition, it was crucial for America to secure its self-sufficiency in natural gas with a view to future increases in demand. According to an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, “Palin effectively beat back the ambitious petrotyrants 10 years early” with her 1,715-mile pipeline across Canada that will bring 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas to the lower 48 states - nearly one-fifth of projected needs - within a decade. “Palin mowed down 30 years of legislative squabbling in the Alaska Statehouse and then triumphantly signed off on the pipeline in August,” noted IBD.

This accomplishment should resonate in Britain, where only reduced demand from industry as a result of the recession prevented it from running out of gas in the middle of a cold snap last February. Despite a complacent government insisting that North Sea reserves and gas pumped in from Norway were sufficient to meet the crisis, the country reached “a new low” with the amount of gas in reserve only sufficient to keep up supplies for 4.1 days of average demand. This was the second time in four winters that Britain almost ran out of gas. With the EU now beholden to Russia’s mafia government for 20% of all its gas needs, delivered via ever more problematic Ukraine pipelines, and the annual gas bill for the average British family having increased by nearly 50 per cent to £834 last year, UK vulnerability is a deep concern.

In this local light, Governor Palin’s foresight and political acumen shines, as recognized by the IBD article which concluded that “Heading off the gas cartel is an important move, and Palin deserves recognition.”

Fat chance! Despised for not killing her beautiful Downs Syndrome baby, thereby rubbing Liberal noses in their own shame (90% of American Downs babies are aborted), and feared for her wholesome threat to the godless status quo, the mainstream media presented her to the American public as both a political bimbo and a dangerous pro-life redneck.

They perpetrated this outrageous deception in order to inflate Obama’s non-existent credentials and create his laughable messianic image. For in comparison to Governor Palin, Mr Obama had/has virtually no accomplishments beyond getting himself elected. And he only did that in the very first instance by having all his opponents cruelly kicked off the Chicago ballot paper on technicalities, so leaving himself a free run! It is this ruthless self-interest, not selfless idealism or mercurial talent, which established him as a cog in Chicago’s corrupt political machine and defined his quicksilver ascent.

In both the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate, for example, Barack Obama developed a reputation for voting “present,” thus avoiding controversial decisions that could be used against him later. In the U.S. Senate alone he missed more than one in five votes. Just consider that only one of the measures America’s new leader sponsored as a U.S. senator has been enacted: a bill to “promote relief, security, and democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo”!

Especially telling in terms of calculated self-serving, however, is the truth behind his greatest boast: his work as a community organizer. In fact, when it came to his one major project, he not only took all the credit despite the far more substantial work of others, who he failed to acknowledge in his autobiography, he didn’t even achieve his objective. In early 2008, at the outset of the election campaign, Newsmax correspondent Ronald Kessler filed this revealing report, which echoes a now familiar pattern of duplicity, vacuity and non-achievement:

In his memoir, Obama says being a community organizer taught him how to motivate the powerless and work the government to help them. His chief example is an effort to remove asbestos from Altgeld Gardens, an all-black public housing project on Chicago’s South Side. But those who were involved in the effort say Obama played a minor role in working the problem and never accomplished his goal. A pre-existing group at Altgeld Gardens and a local newspaper, the Chicago Reporter, were working on the problem before Obama came on the scene, yet Obama does not mention them in his book, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.

“Just because someone writes it, doesn’t make it true,” says Altgeld resident Hazel Johnson, who had been pushing for a cleanup of the cancer-producing substance years before Obama showed up.

Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Ill., says it was Johnson’s work, along with asbestos testing by the Chicago Reporter, that got Chicago officials interested in the issue. Rush, who launched an inquiry into the situation when he was a member of the Chicago City Council, says he is “offended” that Obama did not mention Johnson in his account.

“Was [Obama] involved in stuff? Absolutely,” says Robert Ginsburg, an activist who worked with Johnson and Obama on the problem. “But there was stuff happening before him, and after him.”

After three years working as an organizer, Obama could say he helped obtain grants for a jobs program and got asbestos removed from some pipes in the project. But as the Los Angeles Times has noted, the “large-scale change that was needed at the 1,998-unit project was beyond his reach.” To this day, most of the asbestos remains in the apartments.

Fruitless though his efforts were, Obama devoted more than 100 pages to his experiences at Altgeld Gardens and surrounding areas. Michelle Obama has said his work as a community organizer helped him decide “how he would impact the world,” assisting people to improve their lives. Yet, in a revealing passage in his book, Obama wrote, “When classmates in college asked me just what it was that a community organizer did, I couldn’t answer them directly.”

Instead, he said, “I’d pronounce on the need for change. Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in the congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of the country, manic and self-absorbed. Change won’t come from the top, I would say. Change will come from a mobilized grass roots.”

Thus, Obama admitted that he accomplished little but that he was able to cover that up with fancy talk about change.

After going to Harvard Law School, Obama returned to Chicago, where he briefly headed a voter registration drive and then became a lawyer. While Obama’s campaign has touted him as a civil rights lawyer, “Over the nine years that Obama’s law license was active in Illinois, he never handled a trial and mostly worked in teams of lawyers who drew up briefs and contracts in a variety of cases,” according to David Mendell’s Obama: From Promise To Power.

A review of the cases Obama worked on during his brief legal career “shows he played the strong, silent type in court, introducing himself and his client, then stepping aside to let other lawyers do the talking,” the Chicago Sun-Times has reported. “A search of all the cases in Cook County Circuit Court in which Obama made an appearance since he graduated from Harvard in 1991 shows: zero,” the article said. Instead, his practice was “confined mainly to federal court in Chicago, where he made formal appearances in only five district court cases and another five in cases before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - a total of 10 cases in his legal career,”the paper said.

Kessler’s report confirms that Obama is not what he seems. But it is nothing preternatural, just old-fashioned smoke and mirrors. With the help of starry-eyed journalists he has simply created his own mythology, as in his portrayal of himself as a unifier, when on every bipartisan effort in the Senate to forge compromises on tough issues, Obama was missing in action. “In sum,” wrote Kessler, “it would be difficult to imagine a more mediocre record. Most candidates for dog catcher have contributed more to society.”

And yet, terrifyingly, at a time of unprecedented crises on several fronts, America has entrusted its security and future to someone who has never demonstrated an ability to get anything of significance done. Someone who, from the time he was sworn in as a senator on 4 January 2005 to his announcement on 16 January 2007 that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee, logged a derisory total of 143 days of experience in the U.S. Senate.

Jermiah Wright and the Black Values System

The essential adjunct to the egoistic ambition required to create your own mythology in this way, is ruthlessness. With press complicity this trait is too easily disguised, as some of Tony Blair’s inner-circle learned the hard way. Like many others, his ex-tennis partner and Middle East envoy, Michael Levy, was fooled by the smiles and easy-going air. But when Blair finally and inevitably abandoned him to look after No.1, reality dawned and Levy admitted being forced “to recognise that for all his attractive qualities .... Tony really was just in it for himself.” The Reverend Jeremiah Wright will identify with that revelatory feeling.

Barack Obama’s long-time minister, friend and adviser, Wright is rabidly anti-American, calling for God to damn the United States and referring to it as the “U.S. of K.K.K.A.” His visceral hatred of his country is best captured on the YouTube recording of his infamous January 2006 sermon/rant, in which he blames America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black man, among much else. Although Newsmax had started running stories on Mr Obama’s relationship with Reverend Wright in January 2008 before the primaries began, the media suppressed any mention of Wright until mid-March, so as to allow Obama to secure the Democrats’ nomination ahead of Hillary Clinton. When they finally condescended to tell the truth, Obama’s double-digit lead over Clinton in national polls vanished and John McCain’s poll ratings skyrocketed, all driven by the Wright revelations.

“The folks don’t want leadership that is associated with that kind of hatred,” said Fox TV commentator Bill O’Reilly, who lambasted the media for its rank and risible bias. “Remember the very liberal New York Times attacked John McCain for associating with a lobbyist nobody ever heard of. The Times put the story on page one and the liberal media ran with it. The McCain story was about association and judgment and what’s the Obama story about? Association and judgment. But The New York Times buried the pastor story - the paper must think its readers are stupid. Likewise, the nightly network news programs have downplayed the situation. On Friday, ABC News ignored it and NBC News gave it 20 seconds.” He further emphasised that had his O’Reilly Factor not broken the story wide the day before, “it would have likely died which is exactly what the leftist media wants.”

Finally forced to respond, Obama initially dissembled and lied, making up excuses for his minister out of thin air while passing off protests as a tempest in a teacup. He described Wright as being merely like “an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don’t agree with,” yet rarely mentioned items of disagreement and notably avoided Wright’s racially-charged “Black Value System.” This was laid out in the “About Us” section of Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ website and included features such as “adherence to the black work ethic,” “pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System,” “pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community,” and “disavowal of the pursuit of ‘Middleclassness’.” A link to the Black Value System at the bottom of the home page led to a shocking elaboration on that middle class “disavowal” which identifies white Americans as “captors” and African-Americans as “captives”:

Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must keep the captive ignorant educationally, but trained sufficiently well to serve the system. Also, the captors must be able to identify the ‘talented tenth’ of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control. Those so identified as [sic] separated from the rest of the people by:

Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of ‘we’ and ‘they’ instead of ‘us.’

We can safely say that this contextualising of Pastor Wright’s noxious views puts paid to Obama’s feeble spin that many of Wright’s comments were “taken out of context”! And we can just as surely presume that he refused to broach and repudiate this vile propaganda since by Wright’s reckoning Obama himself is surely one of those “killing off” the “captives”: the abortion-on-demand he champions like no other being the principal killer of African Americans! (Although comprising only 13% of the population, 37% of aborted babies are black, with 17 million such children being done to death in this way to date.)

Predictably, he was not grilled about the Black Values System. But at least questions were finally raised about his friendship with Wright. Bill O’Reilly, for one, asked the pertinent questions on everyone’s lips: “How can you have a close association with an American hater for 20 years? Also, what kind of judgment allows a sitting senator to attend a church that radical?”

The fact is that while Wright’s venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country would have caused the vast majority of Americans to simply walk out of his Chicago church, Obama and his wife not only sat through hundreds of his ‘sermons’ over many years, they were as thick as thieves with the man, which only served to confirm and heighten their Alinskyite mindset. “Indeed,” wrote Ronald Kessler in March 2008, “Obama has described Wright as his ‘sounding board’ during the two decades he has known him. Obama has said he found religion through Wright in the 1980s and consulted him before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Wright before announcing his candidacy last year. Aside from showing poor judgment, it’s difficult to imagine that Obama could be so close to Wright without agreeing with at least some of his views. In light of Wright’s perspective, Michelle Obama’s comment that she feels proud of America for the first time makes perfect sense. (In a second iteration, she said she feels ‘really proud’ for the first time.) Wright’s blame-America mentality also fits in neatly with many on  the left...”

The master of personal mythology, Obama then turned to fabricating myths about Wright in attempts to excuse his denunciations of America and of whites. During a 27 April 2008 Fox News interview, referring to racial discrimination, violence and segregation, he said that Wright “went through experiences that I never went through.” And again, in a speech on race in Philadelphia, he described a “lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family ... .” He said this was “the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up ... . For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years.”

This characterisation is simply untrue. Like Obama’s manufactured vision of his own life, it is fiction. The reality is that Wright grew up in a racially mixed, middle-class section of Philadelphia called Germantown, which consisted of homes on broad tree-lined streets. Both his parents had good jobs: His father was a pastor; his mother was vice-principal of Philadelphia High School for Girls. Wright was privileged to attend the elite Central High School, which admits only the most highly-qualified applicants from all over the city. When Wright attended Central High, the student body was 90 percent white, according to students who attended at around the same time. Wright’s classmates clearly respected him. The 211th class yearbook described him as the “epitome of what Central endeavors to imbue in its students.”

In contrast to Wright, Bill Cosby, who also attended Central High, has denounced the black culture of victimhood that Wright has promoted in his sermons, a culture that Cosby says sets up blacks for failure. But if Wright foments black victimhood, he himself is far from the victim of oppression painted by Obama. His new home has 10,340 square feet of space, about four times the size of a typical suburban house. It includes four bedrooms, a lift, an exercise room, and a four-car garage. In other words, while manipulating blacks into seeing themselves as victims and creating a black “culture of failure,” Wright is garnering the support that helps him live the American dream along with his presidential protégé.

Unlike the mainstream media which duly ignored Obama’s mythical take on the upbringing of his spiritual mentor and sounding board, independent journalist Ronald Kessler proclaimed that “Obama’s attempt to excuse Wright’s hate-America rhetoric by deceptively describing his personal history and his failure to condemn him as a bigot speak volumes about the candidate’s own character and fitness to lead the country.”

True. Yet simultaneously, and perhaps most telling of all, Obama quietly removed any mention of Wright from his campaign’s website. The effort to “airbrush” him out of Obama’s life was discovered by bloggers while conducting searches in Web archives. They found that Wright had been prominently featured on the Obama site as the first person listed in the “Testimonials” section. Next to a large picture, Wright was quoted as saying: “I support Barack because of his incarnated faith - his faith made alive in the flesh. He reaches across all faith communities and even to those who have no faith at all.” But Wright’s testimonial vanished and was replaced by a statement from “Danielle S.,” a Ph.D. student in educational policy.

And so Jeremiah discovered that Barack, like Blair, was ‘just in it for himself’ and not about to let friendship thwart his plans.

Follow the money

While many US Evangelicals think Barack Obama is the Antichrist, and though Monsignor Sgreccia of the Pontifical Academy of Life rightly compares him to King Herod slaughtering the innocents, the Wright episode confirmed that the truth about Barack is far more pedestrian. As commentator Dick Morris simply explained: “Why did Obama hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career.” Accordingly, when the going got tough and Wright had outlived his usefulness, he dumped him.

David Freddoso, author of The Case Against Barack Obama, labelled Obama’s presidential campaign a false messianic movement, concluding early on from his extensive research that “it was not right to worship the guy the way he’s being worshipped” because there is nothing special about Obama: “He’s like all the rest of them. Not a reformer. Not a messiah. Just like all the rest of them in Washington. And just like all the other liberals, too.” Despite his endless banging on about “change”, says Freddoso, Obama has consistently practiced throughout his career the “old politics” he consistently denounces:”... he is also not this figure of hope and change that he makes himself out to be, precisely because of the connections that he has made, the alliances, the endorsements, the legislation he’s passed to accommodate himself to Chicago’s political machine. “

Talk-radio host Don Imus is even more succinct. Obama, he says, is “an empty suit and a phony.” One with a chilling mindset, to be sure (flagged by the death sentence he pronounced on his future grandchildren in utero should they inconvenience his daughters). And possessed of useful skills, certainly. But essentially just one more go-getter on the make.

Already living the good life before his run for the presidency, his wealth has shot up from about £100,000 to at least £3million from the time he entered the U.S. Senate and began positioning himself for a run on the presidency in 2004, his autobiography contributing substantially to that increase. Good business. Yet small change compared to the riches in store, as his living British template, Phony Tony, has so grotesquely demonstrated. Ultimately, beyond all his ideological ties and motivations which we will further consider, to understand Obama, as to comprehend the rise to power of all such men and their subsequent glittering lifestyles, just follow the money.

Ever since he squeezed his snout into the crowded Chicago trough, the filthy lucre has flowed Obama’s way. He immediately moved up the property ladder, for instance, courtesy of convicted developer felon Tony Rezko (who saved him $300,000) and a preferential mortgage rate on a $1.6 million home which the lending institution, Northern Trust, admits that he obtained due to his position in the Senate. The Washington Post calculated that the favourable rate on the $1.32 million loan would save Obama $300 a month compared to those on average rates available to other people, amounting to at least $108,000 over the life of the 30-year loan. It enabled Obama and his wife to buy a mansion with six bedrooms, four fireplaces, a four-car garage, 5 baths, wine cellar, music room, library, solarium and granite-floored kitchen. In July 2008, Judicial Watch, a non-profit foundation that combats government corruption, contended that the below market loan rate “almost certainly constitutes an illegal campaign contribution (or gift)” to Obama, also citing a report from the Center for Responsive Politics that Northern Trust employees had contributed $71,000 to Obama’s political campaigns since 1990.

Needless to say, the Federal Election Commission [FEC] ruled that no laws were violated and closed its file on the complaint, even while admitting that Obama received the discount rate. It was just as complicit in waving away requests to audit the Obama campaign’s unprecedented finance fraud which, along with the essential backing of the billionaire Bildeberg kingmakers, got Obama over the presidential line. After a typical 360-degree about-turn on his original pledge to support the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act of 2002, which imposed limits on how much federal candidates could raise and spend in their campaigns, Obama became the first major-party candidate since the system was created to reject taxpayers’ money for the general election. Subsequently, he outspent McCain (who kept his public funding pledge) 5 to 1 in clearly illegal fashion (while simultaneously registering 400-500,000 votes by equally dodgy means at a cost of $800,000) thus craftily changing the dynamics of the election and effectively killing any future public funding of presidential election campaigns stone dead. This was a key reason for his win. Despite the tedious hype it was not “transformational” or a landslide at all. On the contrary, it was a relatively modest-victory rooted in dishonesty from start to finish.

Smashing all fundraising records, Barack Obama and his team effectively bought the White House for $668 million, the staggering amount they raked in. But intensive research by investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman uncovered numerous instances of questionable (often clearly fictitious) sources and illegal donations, with millions of dollars raised by allowing donors to exceed the legal limit of $2,300 per election. Millions more flowed into Obama’s coffers from unidentifiable sources, including prohibited financial support from foreign nationals. Astoundingly, nearly half of his total campaign contributions, over $300 million, came from donors under $200 - donor names Obama still refuses to release for public scrutiny. (Much as he won’t release his original birth certificate to prove that he meets the essential presidential requirement of being a “natural born citizen,” despite compelling evidence that he was born in Africa and dozens of major lawsuits filed across the country demanding access to his records to ascertain the truth of the matter.)

On 25 June 2008, FEC analysts sent the Obama campaign a sharply worded notice with a 58-page single-spaced list of donors whose contributions were over the limits. This was one of more than a dozen letters it received from the FEC asking for clarification of apparent foreign donors, or the refund of excess contributions. More often than not, the Obama campaign simply failed to respond within the statutory 60 day limit, took an inordinate time to refund money, if at all, and generally got away with every kind of ruse. Interestingly, the FEC was crippled until June 2008 because of partisan wrangling, but helping to impede it was the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who placed a “hold” on a Republican nominee in October 2007. That action had the effect of keeping the commission on the sideline for the entire primary season while his fraudulent campaign machine cranked up.

Nefarious “shadow”

To detail the Tammany Hall politicking is not to make light of Mr Obama or the cult of death he embodies, just to put him in grubby perspective. He may only be a symbol but, as James Kalb qualified, he is still a “powerful symbol” who has “energized” the Left. Indeed, he has moved it to another level. To the naked eye he appears more as a white-collar Anti-John the Baptist preparing the way for the End Times; using Christian language devoid of Christian meaning to “prepare a godless, morally corrupt society as the proper milieu for the coming of the Antichrist,” as Fr Vincent Micelli described the preparatory role of such false prophets.

In other words, he is not the feature but the featurette: the latest “shadow” of Antichrist. Like the suave, high-flying crooks who have wrecked the world economy and the lives of untold millions, however, Obama’s debonair persona and bright smile is actually more chilling than the overtly criminal shadows who preceded him down the centuries. Nero, Bonaparte, Hitler, Stalin … all such monsters took a fearful toll in souls, flesh and blood. Yet Obama’s cold-blooded bureaucratic desire to exterminate the unborn - surgically, chemically and experimentally - and even kill off survivors of botched abortions, will match or exceed any amount of death and destruction wrought by his equally diabolic yet less fragrant forebears.

A further ominous sign in this regard is his repeated statement that his biggest mistake was voting with a unanimous Senate to help save Terri Schiavo, the disabled Florida woman whose estranged husband won the legal right to starve her to death. To recap: In March 2005, weeks before Terri died from a painful 14-day starvation and dehydration death, Congress approved legislation allowing her family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop the euthanasia from proceeding. Terri was not on any artificial breathing apparatus and only required a feeding tube to eat and drink. Her family had filed a lawsuit against her former husband to allow them to care for her and give her proper medical and rehabilitative care. The Senate unanimously approved a compromise bill which President Bush signed, to help the disabled woman.

During a February 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama said he should have stood up against the life-saving legislation. “It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped,” Obama said. “And I think that was a mistake... And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better,” he added.

As a measure of how his participation in this life-saving measure vexes him, he had said the same thing during an April 2007 debate: “I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn’t have. And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought more for making sure [Terri’s parents couldn’t take their case to federal court to save her life],” he explained.

This mentality is consistent with his determination to pursue infanticide when even the most hardened pro-abort politicians in the land have been unable to stomach crossing that line. In the Illinois Senate, he repeatedly opposed a bill that would have defined as a “person” a baby who had survived an induced-labour abortion and was born alive. He first argued in a 2001 Senate floor speech that to call a baby who survived abortion a “person” would give it equal rights under the 14th Amendment, giving credibility to the argument that the same child inside the mother’s womb was also a “person” and thus could not be aborted. True to form, this was not the truth. He was, as usual, deceiving and dissembling with empty words and arguments which masked his wicked intent. For when the Illinois Senate bill was amended to make it identical to a federal law that included language to protect Roe v. Wade (which the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to pass) Obama still opposed the bill, voting it down in the Illinois Senate committee he chaired.

This is the same man who depicts abortion as a tragedy to be avoided: “On the issue of abortion, that is always a tragic and painful issue... and we should prevent it as much as possible.” While also declaring with a straight face: “I am a devout Christian… Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.”

We shall return to Mr Obama’s religious pretentions in Part II. Suffice to note here that he prefigures the Man of Sin most precisely in this area, since the plausible Antichrist, too, will express his belief in God, but like Lucifer rebel against God. “The devil garbs himself in a cloak of humility,” Our Lord told St Faustina, “but he can never be obedient.” After all, his cry at the dawn of creation was, “Non Serviam,” I Will Not Serve. Barack Obama’s debt to Saul Alinsky, therefore, seems particularly fitting given Mr Alinsky’s Luciferian dedication of his Rules for Radicals, which work articulated the rebellious spirit Barack imbibed - to the full!

According to New Republic Magazine, Mike Kruglik, who trained Obama in Alinsky’s method, considered him “a natural, the undisputed master of agitation who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards....[H]e could be aggressive and confrontational…[to] pinpoint the source of pain in their lives.” This tactic is what Saul Alinsky called “rubbing raw the wounds of discontent” in order to goad the “recruiting targets” into engaging in revolution against the establishment.

Karl Marx himself, whose Satanic drama Oulanem expressed his hatred of mankind and desire to drag him down to the abyss of darkness, could not have put it more succinctly.

Terrorist collaborator

If Obama took to such devilish Marxist methods like a duck to water, it is because he has mixed with doctrinaire Socialists of every stripe since childhood days. He denies being a “hard-core academic Marxist,” a charge made by black Republican Alan Keyes, only admitting to attendance at “socialist conferences” and merely perusing Marxist literature. But this typically dishonest response belies his entire history, including his college experience as described in his autobiography, Dreams From My Father:

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets….At night, in the dorms, we discussed neocolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake, we were resisting bourgeois society’s stifling constraints. We weren’t indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated.

“As a black American, I am exceedingly proud at the American people’s response to Barack Obama’s candidacy,” said Niger Innis of the Congress for Racial Equality. “But to deny that he has long-standing ties to left-wing elements in our polity is to deny reality. If you want to be president of the United States, it is not racism if you ask these kind of questions, and he has to come up with an answer, hopefully the truth.”

Notwithstanding that unadulterated truth is a concept entirely foreign to Barack, the questions simply never arose. Just as the media turned a blind eye during the election campaign to his relationships with all manner of unsavoury characters, attempts to draw attention to this lifelong association with Marxism were either ignored, rationalised or shouted down.

In October, on one of the rare occasions she was let loose by her stifling Republican handlers to do her thing and speak truth to power, Sarah Palin laid bare Mr Obama’s ducking and diving over his close connection to a notoriously violent revolutionary Marxist. She told the crowd:

One of Barack Obama’s earliest supporters is Bill Ayers. Now, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and the United States Capitol. Today they’re saying for the first time that Barack Obama didn’t know back then about Ayers’ radical background. But it was only a few months ago that Barack was saying that Ayers was “just guy in my neighbourhood.” But, wait a minute, he didn’t know a few months ago, that he had launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist! ... Ladies and gentleman... this is about the truthfulness and judgement needed in our next president. Barack Obama doesn’t have it... [We need] to step up and take the gloves off and start telling the truth about what a candidate stands for.

Intent on keeping the masses in pliable ignorance, the media simply buried that address (the video of which I tracked down on the web and transcribed) by springing to Obama’s defence and attacking the messenger, accusing her of character assassination. In the process, they not only waved away Ayers’ post-9/11 comment to the New York Times that far from remorse for bombing the U.S. Capitol Building and the Pentagon he “wished he could have done more,” they studiously ignored the release of administration records by the University of Illinois, in the same month as Palin’s comments, which showed that the Ayers-Obama connection was, in fact, an intimate collaboration.

In the mid- 90s Ayers applied for a $50 million grant to secure funds to “raise political consciousness” in Chicago’s public schools. After he won the grant, Ayers’ group chose Barack Obama to distribute the money. According to political pundit Dick Morris, a former Clinton adviser: “Between 1995 and 1999, Obama distributed the $50 million and raised another $60 million from other civic groups to augment it. In doing so, he was following Ayers’ admonition to grant the funds to “external” organizations, like American Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) to pair with schools and conduct programs to radicalize the students and politicize them. Reading, math, and science achievement tests counted for little in the grants, but the school’s success in preaching a radical political agenda determined how much money they got.”

So, not only had the former terrorist not repented of his views, he now had education grants expressly designed to further them. In return, says Morris, “Obama got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago,” and with it “the only executive or administrative experience in Obama’s life.”

“Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection,” continued Morris, “two key points emerge: a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of grant funds. Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.”

Marxist mentors

Of course, as history now records, he was not required to explain anything about participating in this Marxist programme of political education conceptualized by a self-professed terrorist. Nor called to account for all the other skeletons stuffed inside a closet bulging with similar radical associates and safely out of sight. Like the mysterious “Frank,” referred to by Obama in his autobiography as his childhood mentor.

This turned out to be Frank Marshall Davis, a renowned Communist and anti-American revolutionary. But lest they open up Pandora’s Box and bring their false messiah crashing down, the media ignored this equally explosive relationship by focusing instead on such vital campaign issues as the African garb Obama wore on a foreign trip.

What is in Mr Obama’s head, however, is a tad more important than what is on it. As is his background and the fact that he emerged from nowhere. To this end, independent journalist Cliff Kincaid penned an article on Obama’s secret political life, “Is Barack Obama a Marxist Mole?” (Canada Free Press, March 2008). It explains a lot and makes a mockery of the many superficial, hagiographic biographies of Obama on the market which refer to him as merely “left-leaning.”

Kincaid points out that in his autobiography Obama describes a father-son type of relationship throughout his childhood days in Hawaii (1971-79) with a man publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA): an organisation once controlled and funded by the Soviet Union and some of whose tens of thousands of members were covert agents who penetrated the US government en masse, as confirmed in recent years by declassified cables from Moscow. Davis himself was accused of involvement in several communist-front organizations by anti-communist congressional committees.

It is clearly in this knowledge, and in keeping with his established pattern of obfuscation, that Obama refers to Davis only as “a poet named Frank”: a man now “pushing eighty” who had “some modest notoriety once,” who read him poetry and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice just a few days before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18. Davis called college “An advanced degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that ****.” 

History Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, spoke of the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship last March, during a speech at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library, New York University. Posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party,” he noted that Davis had moved to Honolulu at the suggestion of his old Chicago friend Paul Robeson, another well-known black member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family” that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”

What emerged during the speech was the spidery web of interlinking Marxist groups responsible for furthering Obama’s initial ‘education’ by Davis. As Horne explains, it was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson. Kincaid continues:

The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.

Another figure in the CCDS, Leslie Cagan, is an organizer of anti-Iraq War demonstrations through a group called United for Peace and Justice. Former congressional investigator Herbert Romerstein, an expert on communist activities, said most of the members of the CCDS came out of the CPUSA, where they functioned as stooges of the Soviet Union until the fall of that dictatorship. He said it has “a close working relationship with the Stalinist remnants in the former East Germany, now called the Party of Democratic Socialism.” Romerstein said these were the people who ran the concentration camps and the Communist Party apparatus in East Germany.

Romerstein also cited evidence that after the 9/11 terrorist attacks Cagan organized the first meetings to plan opposition to any United States military action against those responsible.

For his part, Communist Professor Horne says that Obama’s giving credit to Davis will be historically important. “At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will... examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties....”

Barack breaks through

They might also come to a deeper understanding of how and why that relationship kick-started Obama’s rapid ascent. Dr. Kathyrn Takara of the University of Hawaii, who did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987, says that Davis brought “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. Takara says that Davis “espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”

“Coalition politics” are certainly at work in Obama’s rise to power, with treacherous implications. Kincaid writes: 

Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.

“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle,” Chapman wrote. “Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored. 

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama’s career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as “the most liberal Senator.” More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?

DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International (SI). The SI has what is called “consultative status” with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.

The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, “The Global Poverty Act,” has recently been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator (now vice-president) Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations.

Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean’s speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as “progressive.” Democrats, Dean said, want to be “good citizens of the world community.” He spoke at a session on “Global Challenges for Progressive Politics.”

Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting “in the Democrats HQ in Washington,” met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.

Cronies and crooks

Not only the myriad interlocking Socialist links but a trail of criminal connections are kept from the headlines by pervasive media complicity of the type embodied by Harold Mayerson of the Washington Post. You will not see these unsavoury associations featured in Mayerson’s columns, says Kincaid, because he “happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama’s success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros’s success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.”

So much for the President’s rhetoric about raising the ethical bar  and cracking down on white-collar crooks: if they are not his actual patrons they are intimately connected with him and his entourage! Robert Creamer and Eric Holder, to name but two more.

The husband of Obama’s DSA-honoured Chicago Democrat supporter Jan Schakowsky, Creamer emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Now out of jail and back in business, he is running a firm called Strategic Consulting Group. His client list “reads like a virtual who’s who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.” Among the list of Creamer’s testimonials is David Axelrod, a “Democratic political consultant.” Axelrod, of course, is much more than that. He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004, served as chief strategist and media advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign, and is now a senior adviser in the White House administration.

As for Eric Holder, nominated by Obama as one of three people charged with vice-presidential vetting (another being Bildeberger Jim Johnson) he was the first red flag forewarning the return of Clinton cronies and the sleazy “old politics” Obama swore to avoid. As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was the key person who made the heinous pardon of Marc Rich possible in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. “If ever there was a person who did not deserve a presidential pardon,” writes Dick Morris, “it’s Marc Rich, the fugitive billionaire who renounced his U.S. citizenship and moved to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for racketeering, wire fraud, 51 counts of tax fraud, tax evasion (to the tune of $48 million), and illegal trades with Iran in violation of the US embargo following the 1979-80 hostage crisis. Seventeen years later, Rich wanted a pardon, and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss.” In 2002, a congressional committee reported that Holder was a “willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing” the Rich pardon.

President Obama subsequently appointed Holder as his Attorney General, in the process of nominating serious tax cheats and other shady dealers to high public office. Perhaps the worst was his pick for Deputy Attorney General, David W. Ogden, a man with an obscene record of pro-abortion, pro-pornography and pro-homosexual advocacy. Essentially a legal hired gun for Playboy, Penthouse and the largest distributor of hard-core pornographic movies, he has fought against the use of Internet filters to keep public libraries free of pornography to protect children, and successfully defended the right of pornographers to produce material with underage children. Although many of the presidential nominations were challenged and defeated, Ogden, like his new boss Eric Holder, was confirmed. 

Political payback

Formed and sponsored by all these revolutionary Marxists, crooks and Party parasites, which Animal Farm menagerie he now fronts, it is only in this self-serving Orwellian light that one can appraise the new leader of the free world. Whether his unprecedented anti-life aggression, or his promise of sweeping “change” and a “transformative” presidency, or the fact he is “very committed” to naturalizing 12 million illegal immigrants, every word and action must be viewed in terms of Obama’s desire to consolidate the political balance in favour of the Democrats and thus assure access to the public trough for generations to come. (By the time Obama is finished legalising the illegals and weakening border controls, for instance, in an attempt to hike the Latino vote to make Republican states like Texas into Democrat states like California, it is said that the Latinos and blacks will cast a combined 30 per cent of the vote, assuring Democrat domination).

To this end, Obama employs “pragmatism,” the essence of Alinskyism, as his overriding political principle. In other words, the ends justifies any means - duplicity, dissembling, lies - by which he might achieve his aims. During the presidential campaign, he pledged to fight the addition of “earmarks” to legislation (i.e. directing funds to be spent on specific and notoriously wasteful projects), stating last April that “We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress’ seniority, rather than the merit of the project.” Yet he and top members of his administration, including fellow Alinskyite Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden have now signed onto a congressional spending (Omnibus) bill comprising more than 8,500 disclosed earmarks worth $7.7 billion dollars in paybacks and sweeteners: $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming, $238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, $381,000 for jazz at the Lincoln Center in New York, etc. ad nauseam.

Hence, too, the very many divisive actions which immediately shredded his promise of a new era of Lincolnesque unity, bipartisanship and civility in government. Such as Democratic Congressional leaders cutting out Republican leaders completely from any negotiations over his $789 billion “stimulus” bill, and rushing through its 1,079 pages without giving either Republicans or Democrats time to read it. He did so like a Banana Republic dictator screaming “emergency,” only then to delay signing the “urgent” bill for four days after it was passed, in order to take Air Force One to Chicago for a weekend with his wife for Valentine’s day! (Note: he had been in Washington less than a month before his first vacation, and flew off despite railing against cataclysmic carbon footprints and Wall Street’s use of corporate jets!)

Surrounded by so much hypocrisy and mendacity, not just the Republicans but even six House Democrats stood firm and voted against the bill, complaining bitterly of its inadequacy and its implementation. Bobby Bright of Alabama said there was too much spending and not enough stimulus in the bill, admitting that his party leaders “rushed” the bill through Congress “with little debate or opportunity to offer meaningful changes.” Consequently, his constituents overwhelmingly oppose it and “have little faith” that the bill “will be worth its tremendous” price tag.

Sounding all the world like a frustrated Labour MP in the increasingly autocratic House of Commons, his fellow Democrat Jim Cooper of Tennessee told a Nashville radio station in early February, “I got in terrible trouble with our leadership because they don’t care what’s in the bill; they just want it to pass and they want it to be unanimous. We’re just told how to vote. We’re treated like mushrooms most of the time.”

Heath Schuler of North Carolina criticised his party’s leaders for failing to work across the aisle on the bill, insisting that “In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way.” While Gene Taylor of Missouri said he simply couldn’t support a stimulus bill that spiked the deficit (in the short term by about $200 billion!). “We will have to borrow every penny of the $789 billion,” he fumed after the House vote. “Our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay it all back with interest. $789 billion is an enormous amount - as much debt as the nation borrowed in our first 203 years, from the revolutionary war to the beginning of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency in 1978.”

His colleague Walter Minnick of Idaho agreed, offering a scaled-down $200 billion stimulus as an alternative. He voted against the plan for the eminently sensible reason that it can’t work until the country’s banking and financial industries are back on their feet. As an example, he cited funds in the plan devoted to infrastructure projects. Without access to loans from cash-strapped banks, he said, contractors can’t obtain lines of credit to buy equipment they need to begin work on projects.

Despite their common sense and principled resolve, however, these admirable Democrats miss the point and the bigger picture. Since this most highly politicised, exorbitant spending bill in history is not so much about saving the economy as moving the United States towards even bigger government and European-style socialism. Dick Morris remarked that the money “is really Obama’s blank check for his ‘transformative’ politics. This ‘stimulus’ amounts to nothing more than a bloated Democratic piggy bank for Obama and his administration to dole out, over the next five years, to political donors and constituencies to win congressional re-election in 2010 and for Obama’s re-election in 2012.” Precisely.

Of $507 billion, about half is earmarked for local and state governments to keep state education and benefits programmes going, as payback to the powerful government employee unions, the backbone of the Democrats. In his political memoir, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes: “I owe those unions... When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don’t mind feeling obligated.” Among the many frightening demands the big unions will make of their pal Obama, denying workers the right to vote by secret ballot is at the top of their lengthy agenda, since it would enable union organizers to forcibly unionize many more millions of workers, whose union dues will fill the Democrat coffers. President Obama is already proposing a bill to strip workers of this right and force them to vote in front of intimidating union officials. In keeping with his spuriously titled Freedom of Choice Act, which would destroy all pro-life choices including conscientious objection, this oppressive bill is deceptively called the Employees Free Choice Act. If successful, it will raise the proportion of the labour force in unions from the present level of about 12 per cent up to the high teens.

The other half of the $507 billion consists of long-term (5-10 year) “pork barrel” funds (i.e. cynical appropriations to ingratiate Democrats with their constituents) which include such massive payoffs and paybacks as: $20 million for the removal of small- to medium-sized fish passage barriers; $400 million for STD prevention; $34 million to remodel the Department of Commerce HQ; $70 million to “Support Supercomputing Activities” for climate research; $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts; $300 million for new cars for government bureaucrats; $1.2 billion for “youth activities”(to which sinister allocation we shall return in due course); tens of billions for “green, environmental and energy programs” - including $3.7 billion to help “green” military bases and another $125 million to restore “abandoned mines.”

“Spending money like a pimp with a week to live” (to borrow an evocative description of the Bush spending sprees), the Obama largesse extended to anyone prepared to toe the line. Turncoat Arlen Specter, one of only three Republicans who backed the stimulus bill, got his thirty pieces of silver in the form of $6 billion worth of pork for “medical research.” His reward for treachery pales, however, against the riches on offer for presidential pals like the Association for Community Organisations for Reform Now (ACORN), who struck gold.

ACORN, Fannie and Freddie

As pointed out earlier, Obama once raised millions for ACORN at the recommendation of terrorist Bill Ayers. He also worked for and with the organisation throughout the 1990s and gave them more than $800,000 to assist with voter turnout during his presidential campaign. True to form, continuing to rewrite his history like a character from Orwell’s 1984 erasing Big Brother’s past mistakes, the Cleveland Leader reported on 9 October 2008 that “Attempts to hide evidence of Obama’s involvement in ACORN have included wiping the Web clean of potentially damaging articles.”

Despite being raided by FBI agents and investigated for massive voter registration fraud, as well as the funnelling of millions of taxpayer dollars into liberal political agitating, this ultra-left group gained more than $3 billion from the stimulus bill! As a “nonprofit entity” engaged in “neighborhood stabilization activities,” it will use this jaw-dropping sum to continue its work of “community organizing” (read: Socialist activism), a cause so very dear to the President.

ACORN is yet another pressing reminder of the corrupt shadow Chicago is now casting over a White House administered by one of its own. As with the stimulus bill, there is no meaningful debate in Chicago. The notoriously corrupt Democrat political machine and the government are synonymous. Deals are brokered in back rooms among the ward leaders, the mayor and their cronies. The city council rubber stamps their deliberations, much as the Congress acted for Obama, and public money is used to protect and serve the interests of the machine. The President and his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, also a Congressman from the Chicago machine, were thus raised in a one-party system which they are clearly seeking to replicate on the national stage.

Yet this political payoff is doubly shameful and hypocritical since ACORN was deeply involved in pressuring lenders and regulatory agencies to promote the subprime loans and mortgages which precipitated the financial crisis the President’s stimulus package ostensibly seeks to redress. In return, ACORN received millions from mortgage companies themselves and over $760 million in “fees” from banks to help push people with no income, job or assets into loans. In the process, Obama’s friends at the Federal National Mortgage Association reaped millions more.

In sum, Republican failure and complicity elsewhere notwithstanding, the snout-in-trough corruption which came to define the Federal National Mortgage Association (nicknamed Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), the two institutions at the heart of the subprime catastrophe, was fostered, entrenched and presided over by Democrats, including the deceitful Barack Obama, who now acts as if he simply inherited a Republican crisis for which he shares no responsibility.

Stating that the two mortgage giants were both “So large and so interwoven in our financial system that a failure of either of them would cause great turmoil in our financial markets here at home and around the globe,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson placed their mortgage liabilities of more than $5 trillion onto the backs of the U.S. taxpayer last September. And yet as recently as 2004, despite a damning report on improper practices by the Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight [FHEO], Democrats lined up one after the other before their Republican accusers on a Congressional hearing into Fannie and Freddie’s illegal book-keeping, to deny any problem whatsoever at the institutions.

Among them, as recorded on the eye-opening online videos, is Fannie Mae CEO Frank Raines claiming that the criticisms were “a rush to judgement” and politically motivated: “I get the feeling that markets are not worried about the safety of and soundness of Fannie Mae, as FHEO says that it is, but of course the markets are not political.” In fact, Mr Raines cooked the books to line his pockets with a $526,000 annual salary and $90 million in bonuses in just 5 years (1999-2004)! Forced to step down amid charges of a $6.3 billion misstatement of earnings and accounting irregularities at Fannie Mae in that same period, Raines settled charges brought by FHEO by agreeing to pay a $2 million fine and forfeiting $22.7 million in stock and other benefits, although this payment was covered by insurance and he will enjoy a $1million a year pension for the rest of his life [Washington Post, 17/7/08]. On cue, Mr Obama moved to distance himself from claims that Raines was one of his campaign economic advisers.

Just as Sarah Palin managed to shrug off Republican shackles to launch a one-off attack on Obama’s terrorist connections, on only one occasion did John McCain shake off his lethargy and expose his presidential opponent as a lying faker. During a rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, he summed up Obama’s complicity with this fearsome, refreshing burst of truth captured on video:

Who is the real Barack Obama? You ask such questions and all you get is another angry barrage of insults. Our current economic crisis is a good case in point. What was his actual record in the years before the great economic crisis of our lifetimes? This crisis started in our housing market in the form of subprime loans that were pushed on people who couldn’t afford them. Bad mortgages were being backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and it was only a matter of time before a contagion of unsustainable debt began to spread. This corruption was encouraged by Democrats in Congress and abetted by Senator Obama. Interestingly, Senator Obama has accused me of opposing regulation to avert this crisis. I guess he believes that if a lie is big enough, and repeated often enough, it’ll be believed. But the truth is, I was the one who called at the time for tighter restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And it could have helped prevent this crisis from happening in the first place. Senator Obama was silent on the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and his Democratic allies in Congress opposed every effort to rein them in. Every single one! That’s a matter of record. As recently as September of last year, he said that subprime loans had been, quote, “a good idea.” Well Senator Obama, that “good idea” has now plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

You know, to hear him talk now, you’d think he’d always opposed the dangerous practices of these institutions. But there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest he did. Nothing. Zero. Zippo. Nada. But I wanna tell ya’, he was surely familiar with the people who were creating the problem. The executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have advised him and he has taken their money for his campaign. He has received more money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other Senator in history [$126,349 since election to the Senate in 2004 - Ed.] with the exception of the Chairman of the Committee overseeing it. My friends, while he was taking that money, did he ever talk to the executives of Fannie and Freddie about these reckless loans? Did he ever discuss with them, the stronger oversight I proposed? You know, if Senator Obama is such a champion of financial regulations, why didn’t he support these regulation that could’ve prevented this crisis in the first place? You know, he won’t tell ya’ - but you deserve an answer.”

The media did not even air this damning indictment, of course, never mind ask Obama the question and pursue an answer! Thus, the vast majority of Americans continue to blame the wrong people, oblivious to the fact that the Democrats lied, covered up and killed legislation which the Republicans introduced repeatedly to protect Fannie and Freddie from being used as a cash cow. They remain clueless as to the part their presidential messiah played in fomenting the very crisis they have now entrusted him to resolve. Put on the spot during the presidential campaign, Bill Clinton typically seized the opportunity to absolve himself of blame while admitting the fact: “I think the responsibility that the Democrats have, may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was president, to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” (Not that he objected to his wife joining Barack Obama as one of four Democrats who constituted the largest recipients of political donations by Fannie and Freddie from 1989 to 2008, Hillary pocketing $75,550).

It is also instructive to learn that when the initial Bush bailout plan was being debated in Congress, Obama was the “biggest coward” of all, according to independent political documentary-maker John Ziegler. The man who now cannot push his “urgent” trillion dollar bills through Congress quick enough, “didn’t call a single Democrat to urge passage of the [Bush] bill he said he ‘sort of’ supported and was ‘kind of’ necessary for the good of the country!” He showed then, as now, says Ziegler, “no signs at all of being willing or able to handle any of the issues in the crisis, except to oversee the cementing of the feet of our economy into a permanent and real socialism.”

In setting about this project, he has even packed his Economic Advisory Board with cronies who either raised or contributed vast amounts to fund his rise. According to the Washington Times, the two unions represented on the Board alone accounted for $3.6 million in donations, and eleven of the Board’s 16 members personally donated a total of $262,698 to Obama and other Democrats during the 2008 election campaign. The Swiss-based bank of one member (who raised $500,000 for Obama) is at the centre of a major tax evasion investigation; the Chicago-area bank of another was shut down after investing heavily in subprime mortgages; one of those union representatives was involved in a Clinton-era federal probe into a money-laundering scheme; while the staff director, economist Austan Goolsbee, wrote a March 2007 New York Times article defending subprime mortgages. These advisers, who could clearly benefit from some economic (not to say legal!) advice themselves, were falsely described by Obama as “distinguished citizens from outside the government” who would “bring a diverse set of perspectives and voices to bear in the formulation and evaluation of economic policy.”

European shift

And so it goes. The pork-laden $507 billion portion of the stimulus plan (described by the recently toppled Czech PM as “the road to hell”) merely perpetuates this revolving door of shady Democratic political and financial interests at the dead heart of the subprime meltdown which led to U.S. and world economic collapse in the first place. Just as infuriatingly, none of that spending adds new money to the economy for immediate stimulus, as Mr Obama promised. Even infrastructure programs, such as $8 billion for a high-speed train between Los Angeles and Las Vegas, will take a decade or longer to complete - if environmentalists ever let the project begin.

Meanwhile, the remaining $282 billion of the package goes to tax-relief for lower-income Americans, working out at about $65 a month and also providing precious little stimulus.

At one point, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - the research arm of Congress - estimated that by the time the cost of the money that must be borrowed to pay for this package-cum-political war chest is factored in, taxpayers will pay over $1.17 trillion. But who knows? Some economic advisors, including CNN’s Lou Dobbs and The Washington Times, believe the final cost of Obama’s actions will exceed $3 trillion. Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who called for the CBO calculation, has been an outspoken critic of the stimulus plan. In a Wall Street Journal commentary he warned: “The last several months are a foreshadowing of a new era of government activism, rather than an unfortunate but necessary (and anomalous) emergency action. We will soon shift from a market-based economy to a political one in which the government picks winners and losers and extends its reach and power in unprecedented ways.” In this vein, it is noteworthy that the stimulus bill creates no less than 33 new government programs!

The whole scam reflects Obama’s statist European view that “failure to bring redistributive change is a tragedy” (April 2001) and his desire to “spread the wealth around” (October 2008). At a recent conference, Congressman Ryan decoded these Socialist soundbites: “What we have here is an update of Marx’s famous slogan - ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to his needs.’ Now we have ‘from the suckers who followed the rules, to those who borrowed beyond their means’. But if you acted responsibly, if you saved your money and you kept paying your mortgage like 93 percent of the rest of Americans do, you’re out of luck. You’re not getting a lower house payment, and the government will force you to sacrifice even more through higher taxes to bail out reckless lenders and irresponsible borrowers.”

Ryan also noted that Obama and Democrats in Congress are seeking a “Europeanized economy” by ushering in greater government control of the energy industry and the healthcare system. European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso concurs, proudly asserting that “President Obama is moving toward a European-style model.”

Consistent with all we know about Barack and his links to global Socialism, this move is not just flagged by the nature and epic scale of the spending but the manner in which it was implemented. 

To underline what we noted above: vital democratic processes, including debate and public examination, were suspended in rubber stamping the largest bill in American history, all on the spurious grounds of urgency. “We know that the Democrats, working late into the night, secretly agreed to a ‘compromise’ bill among themselves – and then refused even to share it with Republicans or the public until just hours before the bill went to the floor for a vote,” writes the Republican National Trust Political Action Committee. “We know Barack Obama never read the bill. Many members of Congress have admitted not one senator or congressman even read the bill before they voted for it. When, in our republic, does Congress simply vote on a bill when its members have no idea what it says? And, how could congressional leaders like Pelosi and Reid, as well as President Obama, present a monumental law but not allow even one day of scrutiny by Congress, its staffs or the public?”

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham put it bluntly: “If this is going to be bipartisanship, the country’s screwed.” To which we can only reply: You bet! Welcome to ‘democracy’ EU-style!

Such extreme political partisanship has long blighted Europe and screwed parliamentary democracies everywhere - Brussels and its well-fed Labour lapdogs having turned Westminster, for one, into a disenfranchised rubber stamp factory. Yet despite all its own shortcomings and the same two-party tyranny that afflicts Britain, the United States has thus far largely avoided the same degree of socio-political sclerosis, remaining a relatively robust democracy in comparison. Yes, it was a notoriously spendthrift Republican President who set the now unstoppable “bailout”-ball rolling, but the refusal of House Republicans to support Barack Obama’s alleged stimulus plan displayed a conservative spine utterly lacking among the Westminster jellybacks.

Nonetheless, if the nature and manner of a recent question put to the President by a college student is any indication, America’s progression to a European nanny state, as President Barroso so confidently predicts, is not such a big leap. At a town hall meeting in Florida, the 19-year-old gasped as if in the presence of a civil deity: “Oh, it’s such a blessing to see you, Mr President! Thank you for taking time out of your day! Oh, gracious God, thank you so much!” He then asked Obama what plans he has to better the student’s life and improve his benefits!

Jason Mattera of the Young America’s Foundation rightly pointed out that the question highlights the mindset of the entitlement generation. “That happens to be the mentality today, It’s no longer ‘What can I do for myself?’ or ‘How can I enrich my own life?’ - it’s ‘What can Uncle Sam do through displacing wealth that I never created and that I didn’t work for, but I think I’m entitled to?’” Mattera was also disturbed by the student’s reaction to Obama. “Government has done nothing - nothing - to warrant such heaping amounts of praise. It’s quite disturbing when people [depend on] government bureaucrats rather than themselves. But that just shows you that our culture is degrading rapidly.”

It is this kind of slavish degradation, perversely appealing to malleable young minds, which recalls the cult-like reaction to Hitler. Within six years of assuming power and setting devastated Germany back on the path to greatness without a shot being fired, he had become the most popular head of state in Europe, if not the world, being typically hailed by a 17-year-old German girl during his 50th birthday celebrations on 20 April 1939 as “a great man, a genius, a person sent to us from heaven.”

Should America’s incompetent false prophet stumble into an economic recovery, Obamessianism will also rocket to such celestial heights, eclipsing even present adulatory levels. “The overwhelming reality is that many Americans regard him as something close to the Messiah,” wrote one bewitched British pundit assessing the first 100 days. “His serenity astonishes everybody who works with him ... as if the White House was his natural inheritance. ... Because he is such a fascinating man people want to share in the thrill of the Obama experience ... awed by the spectacle of a politician who tells the truth.”

Behind the smokescreen of stomach-churning hype and spin, meanwhile, the presidential fusion of Godless pseudo-faith and Socialist ideology is exploding into public policy: the chilling secret security assessment leaked in April, for instance, which demonises a range of God-fearing Americans, including pro-lifers, as anti-Obama “right-wing extremists” who threaten the Republic. In Part II we shall look at this and other transitional developments in the wake of President Obama’s Great Leap Forward, the fascistic opportunities thrown up by a chronically unstable world, and the Vatican complicity - embodied in Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, his “convert” Tony Blair and his successor Archbishop Nichols - which embroils the Church in the toxic plague of unjust and deceitful leaders now corroding the foundations of the Christian West and threatening freedom, faith and life everywhere. 

 

 THE OBAMA TRANSITION – PART II

 

Back to Top | Editorials 2009