Obama: How bad is he?

I go back and forth on Obama. The moderate in me thinks he is an spectacularly inept president of the caliber of Jimmy Carter, or James Buchanan, the predecessor of Lincoln, with all the professorial arrogance of Woodrow Wilson and the charmlessness of the narcissistic egotist. The dark side of me thinks Obama is considerably worse: an active agent of American dissolution and surrender to Islam. Let’s go with the second interpretation today, shall we?

I am in good company. David Horowitz, the  founder of Ramparts magazine and a convert from Marxism, child of the American Communist party, and now a raging Obamaphobe, published an interesting article recently that support the darkest interpretations of Barack Hussein Obama.

His article, The Threat We Face, asserts that the President and his closest advisors come out of the American Communist party milieu:


It is also an unhappy but hugely important fact that the conspiracy to which my parents belonged has steadily migrated into the heart of the Democratic Party until it now occupies the Oval Office in the person of our president, Barack Obama, and his closest advisors. The president, his chief operative Valerie Jarrett and his chief political strategist David Axelrod all came out of the same Communist left and the same radical new left as I did, and all have remained heart and soul a part of it.

Horowitz outlines three characteristics of the progressive left:

  • alienation from their country: they are loyal to a revolutionary idea but not to the country of which they happen to be citizens;
  • The second feature of the progressive left that is key to understanding it is its instinctive, practiced, and indispensable dishonesty.
  • A third feature of progressives that defines their politics is that they regard the past, which is real, with contempt, and are focused exclusively on a future, which is imaginary.

I came to political maturity while still in my late teens, in the political struggles of the late nineteen sixties, when Marxists were attempting to subvert my university, and everything else. Everything that Horowitz says  about the hard left I have experienced personally. The hard left in my university was largely Jewish. I can only think of one who possibly was not Jewish. They came by their leftism from families that had been Communist or Marxist for generations, and most of their ancestors had come from Russia or the former Tsarist empire. In fact, the distinction between Soviet Russian-inspired Marxists and the university Maoists was primarily an ethnic/religious split between the Jews  and the goys. The Maoists were largely children of privilege from the Third World. An ethnic distinction this obvious ought to have attracted more attention, but since both schools of Marxism denied the importance of ethnic religious divisions, the division remained undiscussed.

On the first day of my political science class, our Russian-origin Jewish Marxist professor asked the following questions, as he strolled back and forth at the head of the class, smoking and dropping his ashes into a clamshell.

“Can there be perfect knowledge?”

“Can this perfect knowledge be held by a group?”

“Can this perfect knowledge concern the outcome of history?”

“And can this perfect knowledge be used by the group to accelerate the course of history in a revolutionary direction?”

His answer to all these questions was “yes”.

“The issue is never the issue; it is only about the Revolution”. The source of the viciousness of Leftists of this type is their firm belief that knowledge of the outcome of history has been vouchsafed to them. If you know the outcome of history – I do not use the word “believe” here, but “know” in the same sense that 2+2=4, then opposition is not merely erroneous, it is in bad faith. The truth is KNOWN. Thus Obama cannot conceive Boehner and the Republicans as other than as stooges of reactionaries.

Second, when your goal is clear, you can engage in apparently senseless acts that dismay your own country because, as we can recall, your loyalty is not to the Republic but to the Revolution. Damaging the morale of the side you pretend to be on, and strengthening you enemies, is consistent with your goal.

His kow-towing to Islam does not derive from a belief in Islam, as I see it, but because he sees Islam as a useful tool in overthrowing the hegemony of the Masonic Protestant republic of the United States. Everything is focused on one goal: wrecking the country that elected him.

Thus his cutting of aid to the Egyptian military was consistent with a plan to enhance the side the Obama actually favours. As Robert Spencer wrote:

The State Department announced Wednesday that it was cutting hundreds of millions in military and other aid to Egypt, and make no mistake: this was not a government shutdown move. This was the President of the United States blackmailing a sovereign state to force it to restore the Muslim Brotherhood government he favors.



I might have continued to take a moderately negative line on Obama, but for the fact that I have experienced the Leftist milieu from which he and his closest advisors emerged. The Marxist revolutionaries I knew in university were traitors, not just to Canada, but to reason, the Enlightenment, decency in human conduct, and any sense of morality. Horowitz connected the dots for me. Obama, Jarrett and Axelrod are all children of the US Communist milieu. They are activated by the same contempt, derision and disloyalty as I experienced up close and personally in my time among the Marxists at university. I have reached my tipping point on Obama. Not just an inept Leftist academic raised high above his talents, but an active traitor to his country.