Book Review: "The Communist" by Paul Kengor.

I don't hold to traditional format in book reviews. Amazon has liberated us from that crippling structure. The Amazon review is to criticism what free verse is to poetry. Here we go.

The Barack Obama story is an American tragedy. The powers that be, the elitists and the elite including 99% of the news media, decided Barack Obama would be our president. They would participate in myth making and attack anyone who challenged their fairy tales. There would be duping and intentional self-duping. There would be mass celebration of bad times to come.

With the pledge of media Omerta enforced, a few Indexed writers stepped up to tell the world about Barack Obama. "The Amateur" made the strong case for The Peter Principle in action. "The Great Destroyer" credited the president as an architect of destruction. "The Communist" bridges the school of Ineptitude with the school of Domestic Quisling. Like the other two books, "The Communist" was released just months before the 2012 election and it would not affect the outcome. The question remains, is this still worth reading?

"The Communist" is worth reading. Barack Obama comes across as an imprinted duck. An adolescent imprinted duck. The Konrad Lorenz in this case is a radical self-avowed Communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis.

What is frightening about Obama is that he doesn't quote or refer to other influences. Did he learn anything at Occidental or Columbia or Harvard? If he did, he does not mention what that might be. Whatever he needed to know he learned in high school from "Frank". He would carry his sophomoric pride with him for the rest of his life.

The author compares Frank Marshall Davis's influence to Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton's forgettable mentors. They are mentioned here and there by their mentees. Barack Obama on the other hand, is obsessed with his teacher. Not only does he talk about "Frank" often, he parrots the cliches and slogans Frank Marshall Davis parroted. Obama's verbiage can often be traced to American Communist propaganda.

If a future president has but one intellectual influence, it would be good for all of us if that influence was a man steeped in wisdom of his times and of the ages. Those of you hoping for a Plato and Socrates situation will be disappointed. Frank Marshall Davis comes across as a not particularly deep thinker consumed by bitterness.

The author is sympathetic. He refers to him as "Frank" instead of the conventionally used surname. Davis did indeed face racism throughout his life.  That in no way excuses his falling for the silliness and yes, the evil, of Communism. And fall he did. Face first with no hands extended.

Apart from the exposure of Frank Marshall Davis, Kengor focuses a lot of attention on the Communists in America. I hold the strong opinion that the lineage of Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod is disturbing. Like their meal ticket, they have never renounced Communism or spoken openly of converting or seeing the light.

I was not aware that the American Communists cheered for Hitler in the early stages of World War II.  If I knew that Hitler and Stalin were frenemies in the early stages of the war, I had forgotten it. Churchill was the devil who was resisting an ally of Papa Joe. Maybe that explains Obama's Anglophobia.

Kengor reveals a lot of the front groups and dupes who wittingly or otherwise advanced American Communism. Their influence is everywhere these days always repackaged in deceptive terms like "social justice." There is a larger pattern here. This is a portrait of a mass movement and the simple but embittered minds attracted to it. For this reason "The Communist" is well worth reading now and for a long time to come.

Income Equality By Any Other Name...

Income Equality has had many names over the years. Marxism begat Communism. Communism developed a bad name for itself and it was diluted to Socialism--a kinder, gentler version of Communism.

When Socialism squandered its limited appeal, socialists hijacked the terms Liberalism and Progressivism (how can retrogressive policies be progressive? Puzzles the mind.) The problem with those flags of convenience is that they only fool a few sailors some of the time. Most of the sea dogs know who is really at the helm. Aye mateys.

Latter day Marxists hide behind banners that read "Social Justice" or "Economic Justice" or "Income Equality." It's the central problem with Leftists. They are fundamentally dishonest people who are dishonest with themselves. They don't like to put their cards on the table. They believe that they can change the content by changing the label and fool some of the people some of the time. They often fool themselves in the process.

Income equality has two major problems. One is history. The Soviet Union did not help in selling the program. Nor did Chairman Mao. Roughly half of the world got to experience a worker's paradise and most of them hated the experience. The record of Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Watered Down Marxism/Watered Down Communism/ Watered Down Socialism/ Flavor Of The Month Labelism or any other repackaging of Collectivism spawning economic viability for entire countries is not something the Feel-Gooders like to discuss.

The other problem with Income Equality is that no one believes in it. If Barack Obama believed in income equality he would not accept a salary larger than the worldwide median per capita income of $2,920. We could be generous and award him the worldwide, median household income of $9,733. Or we could really be kind and award him the median household  income of the United States, which happens to be about $43, 000. I don't think Barry really wants income equality.

But let us not pick on Barry. If Tom Hanks, Beyonce, Matt Damon, Oprah, Michael Moore--we could list a phone book of names here--believed in income equality, they would surrender to the IRS every penny over $9,733. If one Bernie Sanders or one Alan Grayson or one Ralph Nader or one Phil Donahue or even one NPR or PBS or Associated Press employee put their money where their ample mouths happened to be, it would result in a man bites dog story no one could ignore. But no one really believes in income equality. No one.

So if we watch the State of the Union address we will see a bullshit artist faking compassion. We will hear bullshit pundits offering their praise for the phony displays of compassion. We will be hit with focus group-tested slogans. We will hear the conflation of poverty and income inequality in a boldly deceptive display of flim flam and duplicity. What will be missing?

There will be no hope.

There will be no change.

Obama's End Game

AT LEAST WE WILL FINALLY BE RID OF THE USEFUL IDIOTS

Occupy Blogstreet: New Marxist Poster Child

WAS MICHAEL MOORE GIVEN A PATERNITY TEST?

Who Is John Drew?

NOT EVEN FOX TALKS TO DR. JOHN C. DREW! CHICKENSHITS!

Obama Tips His Hand

To Obama supporters: If terms like Marxist and Socialist and Communist are too harsh, what do you prefer?

WE WERE WARNED!

Post-Obatamy Syndrome

I am the world's biggest loser. As a kid, Charlie Brown kicked sand in my face. If I had gone to high school with Gary Coleman, he would've taken my lunch money. I am a loser in business. I am a loser in love. I am a loser in life. It pains me too much to recite all of my losses, both because it makes me relive my pain and because it is an astoundingly exhaustive procedure to archive all of my myriad failures.

But I, the world's biggest loser, will go to my grave with one eternal satisfaction. I was not duped by Obama. I never fell for his smoke and mirrors and his cheesy stagecraft. I recognized that he was all form and no function. He was all shine and no shoe. He was all package and no product. If anyone thinks I'm too harsh on their deity, I defy them to present any presidential nominee in this country's history who had a thinner resume. Take your time. Go to Wikipedia. Get out the history books.

But of course the Obatamicized will not page through the history books or even scan Wikipedia, for that matter. Facts do not concern the Obatamicized. It is just a given that their deity is superior to mere mortals. True, there are Democratic partisans who recognize Obama for what he is but who will vote for literally anybody the blue team puts forth. They know Obama is a charlatan, but he is their charlatan.

At the core of the Obama movement lie the Obatamicized. The Obatamicized are not necessarily stupid, although that demographic is sufficiently represented. But the Obatamicized are decidedly anti-analytical, anti-rational, and anti-intellectual. They are deliberately ignorant and willfully blind to inconvenient truths. Or convenient truths for that matter. Or truth of any kind. Truth involves facts and facts are a buzz kill. Obatomies vote with the part of the brain that selects American Idol finalists. They are going to vote for the younger, taller, handsomer, deeper-voiced candidate. Change we need.

There are two qualities at work in the post-Obatamy brain: religion and cosmetics. It is hard to separate the two because theirs is is a religion based on cosmetics. Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do in style. Above all else ask nothing about your candidate. Ask not about Ayers. Ask not about Dorhn. Ask not about Khalidi. Ask not about Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines and Jimmy Johnson. Ask not about ACORN or Philip Berg or Tony Rezko. Ask not about your candidate's shady and secretive campaign financing. Ask not about your candidate's achievements or even his proposals. Time spent in mental labor is time not spent savoring his greatness.

People are inherently religious but traditional religion is perceived as boring and irrelevant. Of course, religiosity has to be channeled somewhere. There has to be an outlet. If 80% of America still attended church on Sunday, would Obama have a prayer? Would we see lost souls in T.-shirts with Obama's face with “Hope” as its caption? Would we have stadia full of zombies chanting “Yes we can” and holding placards reading “Change We Need, ” clueless as to what might be in store for them should their deity convert the White House into his personal cathedral?

Would we encounter, as I have, the mesmerized Obatomy victims who cannot put into words the beatific? Ask him what he said and you get answers like “You just got to see it.” The content of the verbiage (yielding to the benefit of the doubt that content is present) cannot be separated from the speaker. The word and the flesh are one and the same.

We cannot overemphasize the Obatomy religiosity and it is a theme we will return to from time to time. For now, let us briefly consider the pitfalls of deifying a living entity. The old deities will not grow more foolish with the motion of time. Such cannot be stated about living deities. The sins and the gaffes will hit critical mass. The landslide of disillusionment will smother the pilgrims who have not already fled in terror. Eventually, Toto will tug on the curtain and you will be unable to ignore the man behind the curtain.

This writer was once a religious person in the extreme. This writer is not given to the modern practice of introspecting out loud. Thus, I will spare you my philosophical transformations. But my religious experience has left me with two permanent attributes. One, because I was a staunch believer, I tend to be respectful of other people's faith. Two, because I was exposed to religion at an early age, I was immunized against all things cultish. I can walk through the Valley of Scientologists and fear no evil.

Admittedly I am a bit less respectful of people who follow a living, breathing guru. I am less respectful still when the guru harbors political ambition. Religion, by its very nature involves the suspension of normal thought processes. Dogma does not always fare so well when it is pitted against the light of reason. But it does not matter much to secularists because religion usually involves the transcendent. I am content to sit out the celestial heaven versus heaven on Earth argument.

When traditional religion enters the mundane it is usually to decide which day of the week is the Sabbath or which foods and beverages can be consumed. I respectfully respect with maximum respect the suspension of the rational process in these decisions. But it is harder to be so respectful of the followers of a political guru. It is just too dangerous to suspend reason in political decisions.

What it took me a long time to realize is that religion performs a socially utilitarian function. It allowed for the suspension of reason at specific, designated times. Thus, people were less likely to suspend reason as a lifestyle choice. In my unscientific conversations with the Obatamicized, a pattern of willful ignorance emerged. Most of them had zero curiosity about Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson and the Fannie Mae/ DNC/ACORN nexus. I don't think any of them could identify Khalidi or Rezko or Philip Berg. When asked about Ayers and Dohrn they had a vague idea of who they were they answered with a uniform “that was a long time ago and he barely knew them.”

The Obatomy victims were unaware that their guru's campaign had donated $800,000 to ACORN. They had heard about voter fraud but dismissed it because Fox News had reported on it. They were apathetic about Obama's mysterious campaign contributions. My stamina was limited. We can argue about whether or not it is raining, but if one party adamantly refuses to look out the window, why continue the discussion?

Yes, I am the world's biggest loser but I but I have some inner peace. I never fell for the Obama hokum. I did not believe the hype. I was not duped. I did not turn off my mental faculties to better absorb his splendor. I did not bow down to my social superiors in Hollywood, in Silicon Valley, on Wall Street or inside the Beltway. I did not bow down to the masters of the media. Above all else, I did not fall victim to the stupid slogans and the empty rhetoric. For all of my feelings of inferiority I have never felt prouder to be who I am. In defeat I found victory. I never chanted the slogans. I never drank the Kool-Aid. I never received an Obatomy.