Comrade Obama

There’s increasing puzzlement about Obama’s foreign policy.  A variety of voices are wondering what vision lies behind a series of seemingly inexplicable actions.  It’s beginning to dawn on people that, as Glenn Reynolds puts it, a replay of the Carter administration is the best case scenario.  For example:

I have suggested, in connection with President Obama’s dealings with Russia, that to call him a fool is to give him the benefit of the doubt. For Obama’s hat-in-hand approach to Russia assumes that the thuggish, autocratic, expansionist Russian regime is more sinned against than sinning in its relations with the U.S. If Obama believes this, he is anti-American; If he doesn’t believe this but elects to act as if it were so, then he is a fool.

Now, it may be starting to dawn on the more perceptive members of the MSM that portraying Obama as a fool — or, more kindly, as naive — puts him in the best plausible light. This desire to offer an innocent (in two senses of the word) explanation for Obama’s foreign policy may well explain today’s front page Washington Post story regarding the alleged origins of Obama’s approach to foreign policy.

Liberals are starting to notice that supporting Zelaya in Honduras, canceling missile defenses in Eastern Europe, treating Britain, France, and Germany with disrespect, and joining Islamic nations in advocating restrictions on free speech is, to put it mildly, doing absolutely nothing to advance the interests of the United States.

Here’s a hint.  He’s not seeking to advance the interests of the United States.

Add this to his long associations with Reverend Wright (recently taped advocating Marxism) and Bill Ayers, the Communist affiliations and attitudes of White House officials such as Van Jones and Anita Dunn, and the radicalism of his most frequent visitor, Andy Stern, head of the SEIU.  It isn’t hard to draw the conclusion around which Glenn Beck has been dancing for some time without actually stating:


This has been obvious to me since early in 2008.  The environs of academia he called home are overwhelmingly Marxist.  He wrote of his seeking out the most radical people he could find, and going to Marxist talks to soothe himself and ease his rage.  His “community organizer” (i.e., “radical troublemaker”) past, his fondness for Reverend Wright, his association with Ayers, his “blank slate” voting record, and his vacuous, cliche-riddled, but supposedly inspiring speeches all pointed to a radical in vague, mirrored clothing that would enable each person to look at Obama and see his own image reflected back.  Who wears a mirrored costume, but someone who needs to hide his true self?


2 thoughts on “Comrade Obama

  1. “Here’s a hint. He’s not seeking to advance the interests of the United States.”

    If only he were that neutral. He is actively undercutting the United States at every turn, debasing our status along with our currency. If I thought he were just naïve, I would say that he is trying to “equalize” the U.S., just one nation of 180, to use that famous phrase. But there is the strong whiff of payback in the air. You can’t just say, “OK, we’re all equal now.” He now has control of the Victimization Model, from the oppressor’s side. He is showing the world that, as a victim (!?) himself, but now in power, he will bring the oppressor to heel and “reset” every relationship from the point of view of a culpable party doing penance. We are guilty, and have no right to demand that others be responsible global citizens, much less stop blowing people up. We now occupy the moral low ground, and it’s only through the salvific offices of The One that America has any virtue at all.

    What did he say at the U.N.? “America’s great: just look at what’s happened in the last 9 months.”

    Someone observed recently that the Obama administration is still acting and talking like they are on the “oppressed” side of the Alinsky equation, when they are now on the “oppressor” side, and that’s why so much of what they do is dysfunctional. I have to agree. Even if most Americans don’t understand Alinsky and the depth of this president’s radicalism, they understand that his detachment from America isn’t neutral. I think George Bush said it best: if he isn’t for us, he’s against us.

  2. Barb,

    I think you’re right on target. People are looking for some theory according to which what he’s doing isn’t harmful to American interests. There is no such theory. He’s not a Jimmy Carter who was convinced that he was doing the right thing and the thing ultimately in US interests. (I”m speaking of Carter then; I don’t think Carter now cares a whit about US interests.) I think he’s actively trying to undermine us, ruin our alliances, destroy the value of the dollar, and tip the balance of power away from the United States and other democracies and toward every tyrant he can find.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s