Tag Archives: obama charming destroyer
Serious investigation into the organized left and the mainstream media leads the open-minded to the conclusion that the American people are being conned. And the most ready demonstration of that is what most Americans don’t know about President Obama. The reason they don’t know it is because the mainstream media have been actively hiding things from the public.
While many Americans were exposed to the inflammatory rhetoric of Obama’s twenty-year pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and were later told by the mainstream media to blow it off, recent video has surfaced on the late Andrew Breitbart’s websites showing the president openly advocating the views of racialist Harvard professor Derek Bell. A racialist is someone who openly views the world through the prism of race and uses it as a means of interpreting the world.
Barack Obama’s endorsement of Bell and his scholarly work was not simply a shrewd maneuver on the part of an aspiring president of the Harvard Law Review. When Barack Obama was later an instructor at the University of Chicago, he assigned the introduction to Bell’s book Faces at the Bottom of the Well, which contained the passage, “Slavery is, as an example of what white America has done, a constant reminder of what white America might do.” Bell has also stated succinctly, “I live to harass white people.”
Do we now understand the constant unfounded charges of racism cast at anyone who opposes Obama?
Did the media actively cover this racialist past of Obama up? Yes, they did. A PBS broadcast in 2008 shows clips of the president praising Bell, but does not give the broader, specific context, nor does it show the whole video, which Breitbart’s site later released. And what did Harvard professor Charles Ogletree have to say about it? “I hid this during the 2008 campaign, I don’t care if they find it now.” Ogletree later said he was “joking.” Ha ha.
Who is Charles Ogletree? A respected professor, just like unconvicted, unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers, who admitted on video to hosting a fundraiser to launch Obama’s political career in Chicago. (Another joke, right?) Well, Ogletree used to edit the Black Panthers’ newspaper, and ardently supported the communist Angela Davis, who was then indicted, but later acquitted of murder. Davis was herself a respected lecturer, and not only in California; she was made an honorary professor at Moscow State University during the times of the Soviet Union.
In the cases of Bell, Ayers, and Ogletree, Obama “chose his friends carefully,” indeed.
With the nearly endless list of radical and even communist associates in Obama’s past already compiled, and easily provable, what will it take to jar people to alertness? A media that does its job would be a good start. But why the media aren’t doing their jobs is the ultimate question.
While some may think that journalists are either lazy or work in a left-wing bubble, that fails to explain their negligence in reporting known facts about Obama’s murky past. The media have consistently misrepresented President Obama as a well-intentioned moderate with hostile, right-wing, reactionary, racist opposition. But the truth is that Obama has a past filled with undeniably radical left political associates, which the media knew about.
If the mainstream media knew Obama not only hung out with radicals but acted as a radical, but portrayed him as a moderate in order to fool the American people, that must mean the media are radical. But this goes beyond ideology or partisanship, narrowly understood. This is about power.
The president has carried out an aggressive agenda in office, taking over one-sixth of the economy with Obamacare, nationalizing much of the auto industry, scooping up much the housing mortgage market, not to mention wielding de facto control of the banks through bailouts and “reform” legislation. The Obama administration has stifled energy and industry development through environmentalist policy, and the president seeks future legislation that would make such throttling of the economy a part of American life. There is nothing moderate about the government accruing this kind of power.
In reality, power is what this has been about all along. That is what Obama organized for when he was with ACORN and its associates in Chicago. The president is widely and properly known to have been a teacher of Alinsky community organizing tactics. Now, Alinsky was not a communist in the ideological sense, but was rather a leveler of the terrain that would hypothetically make communism possible. Alinsky was more accurately a nihilistic “radical pragmatist.” As Richard Poe puts it: “Alinsky scolded the Sixties Left for scaring off potential converts in Middle America. True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.”
That is what Barack Obama did. He put on a suit and worked the system. When he was a member of the socialist New Party in Illinois. When he became the most left-wing Senator, even to the left of avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. This was all whitewashed by the media, and Obama’s past was covered up, records, tapes, writings and all. Anyone who later even questioned Obama was shouted down as a racist, and anyone who wanted answers about the man was labeled a “conspiracy monger.” But normal vetting of a candidate requires some kind of investigation into his past before he becomes the most powerful person in the nation, perhaps even the world.
What made Obama such a powerful candidate was the blankness of his slate, combined with the media’s ready narrative about him as our national redeemer. The man portrayed was a charming family man — how could he be anything but the beneficent figure the media gushed about?
So when Obama spoke of “fundamentally transforming” the United States, many willingly sought refuge from the daily barrage of media negativity spurred by Bush. Obama told his followers, “In the face of impossible odds, people who love this country can change it.” But why would someone who loves this country seek to fundamentally change it? Wouldn’t that entail destroying it — at least as it was founded?
But to millions of Americans, they only know the mainstream narrative, which goes like this: Democrats are for the little guy. Republicans are mean because they oppose a country that is more fair and just. While Democrats are compassionate, wanting only to see to it that everyone has what he or she needs, Republicans are cruel because they oppose making the world a better place.
Republicans have been constantly beaten down by the mainstream media for decades without hardly any principled articulation of conservatism to balance the left’s narrative. Republicans were made personalized proxies for real-world constraints; depicted as unfair for believing in the limited power of government – viz., force – to change the world. The GOP eventually capitulated and become the “me too” party.
The rising conservative movement in New Media seeks to rectify that. That is why the late Andrew Breitbart sought a true vetting of Barack Obama. “Right-wing” media are therefore perceived as an existential threat to the left that must be silenced, as is displayed the strident, relentless campaign to shut down Rush Limbaugh for satirizing a Democrat political operative as a “slut.” That Ed Schultz said the same of conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham, and Bill Maher said far worse of Sarah Palin, goes by the wayside. The issue is not the issue. The issue is silencing conservative opposition.
The question becomes: Why do those on the American left demand an absolute lockstep allegiance to their message in order to “win the future”? Is it because their message is intellectually weak and can be easily taken apart? Or is it because they have ulterior motives besides “helping the children” and “organizing for a fairer world”?
It is because the media need to recreate Americans’ perception of reality in order to transform the nation into something it is not; and that is from a free country to a state-dominated tyranny.
Not only did America rise to become a world power, but its citizens have enjoyed freedom, which sprang from the Founders’ drive to see to the equal protection of our rights as citizens. Now it is clear that the hard left and its wholly controlled Democrat Party want to move us away from that legacy. They want to make our rights contingent on group identity and the sanction of the government. The radical alliance of media and the Democrat Party thus doesn’t seek to reform the country, they seek the power to change it.
The kind of government power the left seeks would not only change America, it would essentially destroy it. The country would immediately be thrown back to the pre-revolutionary conditions of every person being beholden to the government; and that means no individual rights and no real freedom.
What a world without freedom entails in practice is something many Americans cannot comprehend. But if people don’t make themselves aware of whom our charming president really is, they are about to find out.