Obama's self-portrait

Barack Obama's words are often attractive but oddly concealing. His speeches are all balm and mood. It's all very well to seek, as Mr. Obama claims, to transcend old categories, to reject the "old politics." But then what? This graceful rhetorician leaves you wondering: Who is he really? What does he want for himself and for his country?

In search of answers that go deeper than the Congressional Record, I read his first book, "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance." Once you get past the happy surprise of finding a politician who can actually write, the book contains some disquieting elements.

Mr. Obama is the product of a union between a white Kansan and a black Kenyan who met in Hawaii. I had assumed, before reading his memoir, that Mr. Obama viewed himself as a natural bridge between the races and that his message of unity sprang in part from his biology. That was wrong. From his earliest years, Mr. Obama was preoccupied by an internal struggle to make himself a fully authentic black man.

Young Barack hardly knew his father because the elder Mr. Obama left when he was 2. One meeting when Barack was 10 and a few letters were all he had. Only much later would Mr. Obama discover that his father had many wives and many children — all of whom wound up disappointed in him. Barack's mother, Ann, went on to marry another non-American, an Indonesian named Lolo, and took the young Barack to live in Jakarta. Perhaps she was hoping to live some sort of Third World idyll. Mr. Obama never reveals her political views nor her feelings about America. But we get one glimpse in this passage:

That’s a pretty damning story.

Why is it that anyone black that’s successful, upright, educated, and conservative is portrayed as bad, but you have to tap dance round any liberal black whiner because you might be labeled as racist? Look at Steele! A stellar politician and crushed by a white Democrat who more or less promised the black voters more government cheese!

Ever wonder why Rice was grilled the way she was, but the race issue never was brought up by the Jesse Jackson’s, Al Sharptons and so fourth during her hearings? Where was the media, the feminists, or the civil rights leaders?

Why is it that losers with a spotty past are propped up by the black community, but real power houses, the real brains are viewed as some “sell out,” by this community? There are millions that would have no problem voting for President Rice, black AND female! Her race is not the issue, nor her sex organs; but her qualifications, positions on issues, past moral judgments are. Some of the these freaks that bubble to the top and outshine a Powell would be denied entrance to the service as a private for their run ins with the law, drug use, and ssociations with violent organizations advocating the over throw of our government etc.

For years the Democrat party has been courting minority voters. In doing so they brought into the party the screamers like Jesse Jackson, a more or less “shakedown artist.” The black leaders within the Democrat party tend to have loud voices, or they might be fashionably hip like Obama, but they are largely ignorant, the type who just because of race have managed to scratch together their existence which relies on a form of class warfare argument, which is also at the heart of Obama’s agenda in every way.

You see a stark contrast in the black leaders between the Republican and Democrat party. Just compare a Rice with Obama, Powell with Sharpton, Steele with Jackson……...

The problem with Obama, like most Dems, is a refusal to pinpoint the most important SINGLE cause of the cultural degradation in much of the black community. That cause is the destruction of the 2 parent black family. The precipitate cause of this tragedy was the welfare state created by LBJ and (mostly) the DemocRAT Party. But since Barack He who must not be middle named Obama wants to extend and expand the welfare state to all of America, he is careful to avoid pinpointing the correct conclusion.

When you point out that the Democratic Party’s entire history and policies have been antithetical to the best interests of the black community, and that to the extent that a major political party is responsible for any political and civil liberty that black people have, they owe it to the Republican Party, and even when you can prove that historically and factually the most amazing case of political cognitive dissonance then occurs.

The common response is, well that may be true but only the Democrats are “for us”. They usually go on to recite an entirely erroneous understanding of Nixon’s Southern strategy, a distortion of Berry Goldwater’s principled opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and completely ignore the fact that the Democratic Party was founded amongst other things, to extend slavery into the territory’s. Rvery Democrat antebellum platform espoused support for slavery. The Democratic Party opposed the 13, 14, and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution, Reconstruction, every bit of foundational civil rights legislation from 1866 to 1968, instituted Jim Crow in the Southern states, refused to enact antilynching laws, and most importantly destroyed the two-parent black family with Lyndon Johnson’s welfare state, “The Great Society.” When you point out the fact that the modern-day Democratic Party is home to the pro-abortion forces that have enhanced the wildly disproportionate abortion rate in the black community, that doesn’t seem to register either.

The black community is in the throes of the worst political brainwashing outside of the Soviet Union and I just don’t know what can be done about it. I constantly engage in debates with people in my community and they are determined to vote for Democrats despite the clear and present evidence of their utterly destructive policies and history. The staggeringly high level of political cognitive dissonance amongst my people is frightening.

The ascendancy of BHO is the realization of the efforts of all the Cultural Marxists whose ideas were nurtured by the Gramcians who set up the Frankfurt School and spawned cultural radicals like Erich Fromm, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodore Adorno. Their intellectual progeny are thoroughly ensconced in the MSM, academia, Hollywood, and most importantly in the George Soros directed modern day Democratic Party which is the nest for all the Vipers on the left, the racial identity determininists, the radical feminists, the sexual deviationist lobby, the “watermelon” environmentalists, the open borders crowd and the anti-war seditionists who seek to steal from our magnificent armed forces the victory that they have earned with their blood and valor in the SAME MANNER as they stole our hard earned victory from those of us who are Vietnam vets.

Their apotheosis is the religion of Obama, the Lucifer deceiver who would lead this great nation to Fabian Socialist HELL!!!

Should Obama or Clinton get a compliant Democrat Congress and Senate, the damage done to this country and to liberty as we have known it, would be incalculable. They are the most dangerous presidential candidates since Henry Wallace. Please check this link. It will tell you all that you need to know. There is credible info that could lead one to believe that his Indonesian stepfather to him to Mosque with the intent of making him Muslim. His own campaign said in a LA Time article that he was never a REGULARLY practicing Muslim, leading one to infer that he was an IRREGULARLY practicing Muslim. That is enough for the Muzzies to convict him as an apostate or to accept him as one of the faithful deceiving the dhimmis. Check the years 1971-1973 at the link below.
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm

Well said. I believe you are right. It’s the thing that concerns me about the messianic treatment he’s receiving. What concerns me even more is that McCain refuses to get tough with him. He has set himself up so that no representative from the Republican side will be able to say anything about 0’bambi, his lack of qualifications, his position on issues, his lack of substance, his anti-Americanism without being labeled a racist or establishmentarian. And McCain is playing right into his hands by denouncing those Republicans who do question.

FReepers keep saying, “Wait until the general election when he actually has to talk policy and position, then people will see who he really is.” What they don’t seem to understand is that both 0’bambi and the media, with McCain’s consent, are setting it up so he won’t have to. Any questions will be considered a racist attack. It scares me considerably.

Incidentally, if you haven’t heard me say this before, I highly recommend Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” It nails this cult-like following dead to rights.

People are essentially simple to understand in a political sense. They will support the candidate and party that promise them the greatest personal net benefit. College students like the idea of the state paying for their education. Older people like the idea of the government paying for their healthcare. The less affluent like the idea of more state programs and aid. Those affected by natural disasters like a government to pay for their recovery as well……...

It’s actually quite rational that people behave that way; the problem is that they don’t really understand what it is they are asking for. The Democratic Party over the years more or less morphed into what can best be described as a socialist party in an economic and social sense. Hillary essentially is identical to a European style socialist.

The Democrats have tried hard to piece together majorities through minorities. In their effort to attract these voters they have brought into the party members of the respective communities even if resorting to deliberate recruiting efforts. Just like the Democrats in a recent effort recruited former service members, in order to appear more pro-defense and credible in issues of national security and specifically Iraq, they targeted the black community in the past. However, the people they recruit often are the screamers, the loudmouths who like Kerry or Jesse Jackson ultimately discredit themselves and even the party. They are a party that like an ameba morphs, absorbs, and tries to take on many faces attempting to appeal to a broad base of voters, even if artificially induced.

Unfortunately, the Democrat party some time ago adopted socialism as their answer to social and economic issues, and that’s the key difference. The Democrat party stands for more government, more government programs, more bureaucracy, more state run enterprises, more laws etc etc etc. It’s a party that subscribes to ever more expansion in federal and state powers in order to solve what it thinks are all the worlds’ ills. I am reminded of how well that works every time I go to the VA hospital in Dallas. And of course as these inefficient, non innovative, bureaucratic, non customer oriented systems fail, the answer from the Democrats just like a European socialist, is to add more government programs or pour more money into the system.

(An example that’s not race related but is identical)
The Democrats attempt to play the Vet the same way they play the black community. Offer more hand me outs, offer more spending, broadening of programs, when in reality the best answer would be to scrap the VA all together! When I state that, I as a disabled Vet get the same response you do from the black community. Why would a rational man think the way we do? Because I have never seen socialism work; I have not seen it work in the past or present. I have not seen it work in Germany where I grew up, or in the US where our marvelous state programs are also deserving an “F” as a grade. Socialism worked so well, that it was our biggest ally in bringing down the Soviet Empire, since from within like a giant speed brake it retarded economic development from the former DDR to China. Isn’t it ironic that in those places that privatized and applied free market concepts you see an economic explosion, such as in India and China, and in the meantime you have people in the US talking about more socialism essentially?

There is no reason why the function of the VA can not be taken over by a commercial health insurance that bids on a contract. Maybe the Vet would have greater access to medical care; he might even be a “customer.” Could you imagine that, a Vet as customer who equates to revenue and whose wishes and opinions matter? Yet most veterans and especially the liberal (AKA socialist) in our society would think me as crazy. To them, there is a personal net benefit in pouring more money into a broke system and many Vets think they’re getting a great deal with their little piece of government cheese.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.