|Is He 'The One'?|
Robert K. Dahl
|REMNANT COLUMNIST, Maryland|
While charming, charismatic, intelligent, and articulate in speech, with a certain spell-binding harangue, his campaign message is mostly muted slogans and cloudy visions of “change”. Where did he pick up this “change” mantra? A century ago the slogan ”CHANGE” was a regularly used code word in the world of international Marxism.
Rather than focusing on specific policy issues, Obama prefers rhetorical sloganeering and visions of undefined “change”. Where he occasionally finds it necessary to take an issue-position, frequently this is found conflicting with a past statement. Issue flip-flopping marks him as just another clever politician telling people what they want to hear, rather than a fresh agent of “change”. In this, Obama seems caught in a tight box, trying to please diverse elements of his Democrat party—moderates versus radicals. In order to avoid being identified with an African-American tendency toward “victim politics”, Obama has now placed his activist wife, Michelle, into a silent mode.
But we do know that Obama favors Affirmative Action, Racial Quotas, Victim Politics, Abortion-on-Demand, Free-flow Immigration, Feminism, Tax-and-Spend, Liberal Judges, Radical Environmentalism, and now Zionism. He’s for “saving the planet” by not drilling for oil, and opposes expansion of new coal or nuclear energy. His energy “fixes” are visionary and speculative—no immediate solutions, with hopeful expectations far into the future. Meanwhile, get a tire gauge because Obama says tire inflation reduces oil consumption. This is not exactly Rocket Science. But if you can’t take public transportation, get a bicycle. Automobiles and trucks are a threat to the planet. Radical “environmentalism” is the “change” he wants.
Obama’s foreign policy calls for an abrupt end of the Iraq War (occupation), with a newly-found strong support of Israel (another flip-flop). In confrontation with Iran and Pakistan, Obama leaves “all options on the table”, including military expeditions. Troops would not “come home”, but most would transfer to Afghanistan, and naval forces would stay in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. So, where is the “change” here? To reinforce a sense of patriotism, Obama seems focused on erasing rumors that he may be a Muslim.
But, no matter, gurus of the Press, TV, Hollywood and Manhattan have practically anointed Obama as supreme leader of the global New Order. He is “The One”! His “celebrity” image is reinforced by an enormous ego, unusual even in the political realm—”I am the One”, as he says. Some call it natural ambition; others call it arrogance and false pride.
However, this expected coronation will still have to await the national election process. Although there’s heavy Democratic reliance on controversial “Motor-Voter” new enrollments and “get-out-the-vote” campaigns, there’s still worry about what “Joe Six Pack” and those odd folks out in the sticks—“stubbornly and sentimentally attached to guns and religion”—might do behind the curtain in the voting booth. There’s also worry about the large element of independent voters who may view him as too inexperienced and risky.
The public has been force-fed images of Obama-adulation crowds abroad in numbers seldom seen since European Socialist and Marxist mobs went wild for dictators 75 to 90 years ago. Many Europeans have been slowly brainwashed to forget their once-proud cultural heritages, and manipulated to embrace International Socialism. So they cheer Rock-Star Obama’s boast that he’s a “Citizen of the World” (New Order codeword). After all, the human race must be homogenized and separated from any notion of nationalism. In Berlin Obama shouts, “all walls must come down”. Presumably, this includes any walls on the Mexican border, as well.
Simplistically hoping for “change” in these uncertain and troubled times, those who favor the Socialist agenda of “Big Government” see Obama as the secular “messiah”, who would part the waters separating us and bring us to the Promised Land. Thus, Socialistic Europe has apparently pre-ratified the election of Obama, so who are we little ones in the U.S. “homeland” to question any of this? Get used to it! We are now “citizens of the World”!
To strip any mystery from Obama, there’s a need to closely examine his early days in Indonesia and Hawaii, and the early educational and political mentors who indoctrinated him. Biographies seem to avoid any critical and complete examination of his early background and the Muslim heritage of his father and step-father.
Given Obama’s 20-year involvement with Chicago’s Trinity mega-church, and with his close association with the highly-controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and in light of his White grandparent’s non-involvement with any religion at all, one might say Obama’s religious commitment appears somewhat cloudy. Was it politics which led Obama to join Rev. Wright’s mega-church—and then being led to Christ—or what? Could political motivation have been a factor in seeking association with South Chicago’s predominately Black churches? Or was Obama, like St. Paul on the road to Damascus, supernaturally led to Jesus? We hope it is the latter case.
Virtually abandoned by his bi-racial parents, Obama was mostly raised by his White grandparents in Hawaii. Obama has said that his grandparents had “little money” while he was schooled in Hawaii. One might ask, with “little money” how was Obama propelled to Los Angeles and then on to exclusive Eastern U.S. Ivy league schools, 4,500 miles from Hawaii? Since Pell Grants, Affirmative Action grants, and student loans appear inadequate to meet the enormous tuition and living expenses in exclusive “Ivy” schools, it would seem probable that hidden educational mentors in Hawaii, partisan financial patrons, and political agents were involved in pushing this favored student in an amazing climb up the ladder. Could Obama supply the facts?
Once Ivy collegiate finishing was done, how is it that Obama was financially free to turn down lucrative Wall Street jobs (said to have been offered), and head West a thousand miles to the South Chicago slums to “aid in organizing” the job-poor minorities? Was this some kind of missionary dedication to humanity, or was there a political objective? What were his financial arrangements for living expenses? Too many unanswered questions! How is it that Obama was led to associate with the radical Socialist “School of the Industrial Areas Foundation” and the affiliated “Woodlawn Organization” in Chicago—political fronts established by founder Saul D. Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a self-described “professional revolutionary”. He was of such radical Socialist fame that he felt impelled to take his organizations underground during and after Congressional Hearings, 1950-52, on Marxist infiltration of the Federal Government. It wasn’t long before his school was back in business as usual. Alinsky’s school was famous as a “boot camp” for radicals.
We learn from Alinsky’s two books, “Reveille for Radicals” (1945), and “Rules for Radicals” (1971), that his Chicago school was a political training ground for grooming radical politicians of promise, using activism in minority communities to gain a local power base. Included was his aim to expand power through a brazen association with South Side Chicago Christian churches dedicated to the “Social Gospel”. Alinsky, a non-believer, worked under the assumption that the mega-church preachers were only nominal Christians, mainly interested in easy and lucrative careers, with benefits of local power. Alinsky would aid these churches in gaining important new members; and these churches could help his Socialist-oriented agents gain a local political base. This is euphemistically called “Community Organizing” in the Democratic Party, with downplay of any association with Socialism. This quest for political power advances under the guise of the “struggle” for Civil Rights, and activism for “equality and justice”.
Saul Alinsky was openly a political agitator, using constant dissention and conflict. His “Rule”, as set forth in his books, was simplified in a slogan: “Agitate+Aggravate+Educate+Organize”, a truly revolutionary program.
Saul Alinsky died in 1972, but his community Foundation and school survived his death, and continued in Chicago with his program of Radical Socialism. Students of his Chicago School certainly knew of (and admired!) Saul Alinsky as its founder. This is not to prove that Senator Obama is, or ever was, a revolutionary Socialist or a Marxist sympathizer. But Obama’s association with the Alinsky Foundation school is part of his early Radical-Left record. Perhaps candidate Obama might be asked to explain this association, and give us his assessment of Alinsky, the “professional revolutionary”.