In the small world that it often turns out to be, one of my old friends, John C. Drew, has emerged at the forefront of the vetting process of Obama for 2012, with a column in Breitbart’s Big Government . Vetting that should have occurred four years ago or sooner, which constitutes journalistic malpractice. John actually dated one of the girlfriends that Obama “compressed” in his autobiography:
[Regina] told me about her childhood in Chicago, the absent father and struggling mother, the South Side’s six-flat that never seemed warm enough in winter and got so hot in the summer that people went out by the lake to sleep….Her voice evoked a vision of black life in all its possibility, a vision that filled me with longing–a longing for place, and a fixed and definite history. As we were getting up to leave, I told Regina I envied her. “For what?” “I don’t know. For your memories, I guess.”
That passage, from Obama’s (first) autobiography, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (pp. 158-9), describes “Regina,” a young black woman at Occidental College who he claimed was crucial to his political awakening. She even encouraged him to drop “Barry” in favor of “Barack.” He envied her confidence, and her memories–so much so, in fact, that he made them up. Not only was “Regina” not from the poor South Side of Chicago, but she was not even black.
I know, because she was my girlfriend at the time.
John was an admitted Marxist at the time. One of the topics I have talked to him about is Obama’s complete lack of a documented “eureka” moment, that soul searching journey or moment when you realize that the philosophical path you are on is simply wrong.
Every person who has shifted from Marxist/Socialist views to Capitalism/Conservatism has that story: the wake up moment or reasons for their life to change directions. Obama does not have such a story to tell. John has told me he believes this is because Obama never made such a journey, that he never made the transition from Marxist philosophies to capitalism.
That would certainly fit with Obama’s continued socialist political appointments and advisers.
[update]
John just sent me a link to another column he has out at American Thinker where he discusses this further:
Politically, the most significant issue missing from Obama’s composite Regina is that the real life Caroline Boss was then a strongly committed Marxist socialist. Boss served as the co-president of the Democrat Socialist Alliance (DSA) at Occidental College while Obama was a sophomore. We also know, from David Maraniss’s book, that Boss she was one of the main speakers at the anti-apartheid event at Occidental on February 18, 1981. In Maraniss’s book, Obama’s smooth participation in skit where he plays the role of a soon-to-be-arrested South African activist offers a stark contrast to Boss’s performance in which — reminiscent of Phoebe Buffay — she nervously flubs the introduction of the guest speaker, a visitor from South Africa.
All in all, I think it is safe to say the story of the real life Caroline Boss would have been much more interesting than the story of the fake Regina — even the parts of the fake Regina that seem to drawn on the real life of the first lady, Michelle Obama.
I am asking myself why would Obama delete a vivid white girl from his autobiography and replace her with a big, dark composite character from Chicago?
As a political scientist, I think the best theory is that my girlfriend’s story would not have scored Obama many points among his potential black constituents in Chicago. Acknowledging the influence of a white, Swiss-American would have called attention to Obama’s politically incorrect attachments to a series of wealthy white females including Caroline Boss, Alexandra McNear and Genevieve Cook. It would have reminded readers that Obama picked Occidental College, in part, because of the advice of a white girl from the wealthy Brentwood area of Los Angeles. Ultimately, I think the story of the real white Regina would have led readers to the uncomfortable realities of the real young Obama — the Punahou graduate who seemed completely white, the cocaine user who benefited from affirmative action, and the angry dude who got in my face to defend his naïve faith in an inevitable Communist revolution.
Crossposted from Blog of America
Chip Meyer is a small business owner, twice recognized on the Inc 500 list, a Tea Party advocate, and a part time blogger at his BlogOfAmerica.com website.
Thanks for posting this.
It recalled to mind the early debate within the black community when Obama was just beginning to run for president.
If you recall the debate centered around whether or not Obama was ”black enough” to gain the support of African-American blacks.
There used to be many American blacks who doubted it.
Then the issue just dropped off the radar.
Our liberal/progressive “friends” will call this an unwarranted “attack” on Obama by someone who obviously has it in for Obama, and thus, cannot be trusted.
@Nan G: Per the LA Slimes: “Barack the Magic Negro”
J.G. #2 Yes they would. And as a fair and honest observer I’m sure you’d agree. Or do you think BHO a Marxist?
@Richard Wheeler:
Actually, Obama more closely resembles a fascist.
Marxist,Facist,Communist,Gay,Kenyan,Drug Addict—-the beat goes on. What’s next?
Now that Obama hasn’t been vetted by the media and the alternative media is doing their job, the media actively undercuts Romney to make Obama look like he’s got a groundswell for you to join: the Fallacy of the Bandwagon.
Here’s what the NYTimes and CBS did together:
Their pollsters gave Democrats a six-point advantage over Republicans compared with real voting turnout.
So, even with that, how’d Obama do?
He’s BEHIND!!!!
Forty-seven percent of registered voters nationwide who lean towards a candidate back Romney, while 46 percent support Obama.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57475178-503544/obama-romney-in-dead-heat-in-presidential-race/http://
Some of us parsing this dishonest poll:
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/309954/romney-one-nationally-d6brcbsinew-york-timesi-sample
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/19/cbsnyt-poll-puts-romney-up-one-over-obama/
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/07/19/oversampling-dems-cbsnyt-poll-shows-romney-slightly-ahead/
Breitbart Lives!
NanG The race is a toss-up no matter what anyone opines and will be decided in Ohio.
RE #6 Islamist
Sorry, you’re wrong. Bill O’Reilly has spoken:
I’m not certain what Venn diagram O’Reilly is looking at & how he squares the circle that if you’re anti-capitalist, what does that make you? Bill asserts that because Obama hasn’t immediately seized all private property that Barack isn’t a socialist. However, Bill doesn’t seem to entertain the notion that the process might be gradual thru taxation & regulation versus immediate.
@Richard Wheeler:
No, Rich. I think Obama is a statist. He graduated from being a Marxist a long time ago.
By the way, you forgot Liar in your #6.
This I believe is the key statement from the article.
@Ditto:
But according to liberal/progressives, we shouldn’t be guilty, or even doubted, by our past associations. Unless, of course, that person isn’t a liberal/progressive, and then it’s all fair game.
Social Justice is a euphemism for Marxism.
Why is it that a percentage of us could see through the slogans and a posters and over all Bull Shit and recognized a marxist over four years ago?
The problems in Europe and our Prez’s efforts to bankrupt this country serve to put us on the same monetary system and under a universal tag team circle jerk like the UN. This has been the plan along, knock us to our knees and see no other option but to join up with the Marxists of the world. We only need to let Numb Nuts hand over our sovereignty to the UN and we can all live in a Dystopia of a design like Obama has planned.
This is what you get when you elect men who have never done anything in their life but play politics to run the country, especially in politics like Chicago.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… It’s a duck.
Plus, you can tell a lot about someone by the people he respects, associates with, appoints, and admires.
As John points out — Obama is sorely lacking a come to Jesus moment, that point where he repudiates past misbehavior and beliefs and explains how and why his current beliefs differ from the mistakes of youth.
Here’s an interesting question: What political philosophy does Obama really think best describes his core beliefs?
Frankly, if Obama had been a bit more pragmatic, ala Clinton, I’d have been much more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as to his core beliefs not including socialism. As it is, there is no action that he can point to and say, “see, I really do embrace capitalism”, hence it is fair to ask him what his political philosophy really is, because it is clearly not capitalism.
@johngalt:
He also forgot muslim/Chinese/Mexican/Irish/Jew.
Oh and re: “Chip” #14……………….
duck.
@johngalt:
It would be one thing if Obama only had a handful of acquaintances who were socialists. That would be guilt by association. The fact that he sought out fellow socialists, communists and radicals to associate with, had them as mentors, as well as his being in the leadership of a Socialist organization goes far beyond being merely “associated.” (Duck)
Just as it would be one thing if person “A” had a friend who had served prison time and while incarcerated the friend hung with neo-nazis for protection. However if person “A” themselves were a KKK Grand Dragon or neo-nazi-militia group officer, it’s pretty clear that they are racial bigots and fascists. (Duck)
On the other hand you can be registered as a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. and be wholly opposed to the party leadership’s political agenda. (Goose)
These post represent the Ultra-conservatives favorite argument: Calling names.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
Not really. Name calling happens on both sides, but objectively I think it would be difficult not to realize that it is most often deployed as a weapon used by liberals to attack and/or discredit conservatives and thereby tell us to shut up – to give up OUR right to free speech.
That’s the game your polite comment was designed to do: discredit this discussion as nothing but “name calling”, when in fact it is a legitimate inquiry as to what Obama considers are his core values. I think it is entirely legitimate to point out that faith in capitalism does not appear to be a core value for Obama, and ask what then is his in his mind instead. Socialism?
That is not “name calling,” it is an attempt to define beliefs so they can be conveyed.
The problem with liberals (well, one of the problems) is this whole political correctness disaster you have created. Liberals use words to control thoughts. Conservatives use thoughts to control words.
Liberals will tell you that you can’t say “illegal alien” because it is offensive, we should say “undocumented worker.” Let’s look at that. Illegal alien is an accurate description; they are people from another country (aliens), here illegally. However the politically correct term, undocumented worker, is not accurate. They are not undocumented, they often have driver’s licenses, bank accounts, passports, and social security numbers. And they are not necessarily working – in fact, often are not. The purpose of political correctness like this is to use words to control the thoughts of people by eliminating major areas of argument from consideration.
The same analysis could be made regarding “abortion” verses “choice”, “African-American” instead of “black”, “swamps” became “wetlands” and “jungle” became “rain forest.” I could go on.
Ah, the destruction of words is a beautiful thing.
Such was the intent, however benignly spoken, of your description of this as nothing more than “name calling.” You did not try to refute the evidence presented – that Obama does not believe in capitalism as his core political and social philosophy. Instead, you basically said, “there is nothing to see here, move along”; or, the more common comment we are given, “shut up.”
No, we won’t shut up, and there is something to see here.
You are correct about one thing, I did find an example of “name calling” in this thread: Your use of the term “Ultra-conservative.”
I would also point to a link that adds to this discussion.
What is our purpose? To complain? To argue? Or to affect change? Rhetoric is about persuasion.
Link did not upload, here it is from Princess Politics
Chip Do you think one can affect political change through intelligent discussion and reasoned debate when accusations of drug addiction and b.j.’s in limos juxtapose the discussion? Just askin
I’d add, preaching to your choir won’t help win any elections.
@Richard Wheeler:
Obie has admitted to his drug abuse issues.
You’re not attempting to dispute what he’s already admitted to are you?
@Richard Wheeler: I’m sorry, I thought this thread was on my post, regarding what Obama believes as his core political philosophy. Did I miss somtething? I don’t remember ever talking about drugs or limos.
I do remember asking if anyone had an answer as to what Obama’s core political beliefs are. A few times now.
But, I guess red herring is what gets served when you can’t deliver facts.
@Liberal1 (objectivity):
-Do you mean like liberal/progressives suggesting Romney is a “felon”?
-Do you mean like liberal/progressives calling Bush “Hitler”?
-Do you mean like liberal/progressives calling Ann Romney a c*nt, a b*tch, and dumb?
-Do you mean like MSNBC’s Ed Schultz calling Ann Coulter a sl*t?
-Do you mean like liberal/progressives calling Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann c*nts?
-Do you mean like liberal/progressives referring to conservatives as Nazis?
-Do you mean like liberal/progressives calling Sarah Palin ‘dumb’?
-Do you mean like Joy Behar calling Sharon Angle a b*tch?
And it could go on, and on, and on.
I’m not saying conservatives, or non-liberal/progressives do not do such a thing, Lib1. Just that your unspoken assertion that liberal/progressives are free from it is entirely unfounded.
@Chip Meyer: Just because name calling occurs on both sides is no reason for one to compromise their principles—if they have any—of rational argument. Even to label Obama as a Marxist—I doubt that any self-respecting Marxist would agree with you—turns out to be name calling, in that it is based on a desire to inflame emotional opinions rather than provide information which can be considered part of a reasonable discussion.
Like your friend, many people dabbled in Marxism during their time in the university. After leaving college, they went their own ways and—largely because of their vocational experience (in isolation from their intellectual prowess)—they developed their political and economic views. Obama developed more of a social attitude, your friend developed a more traditionally capitalistic viewpoint. I have played both roles in my life. While I realize there is no pure form, and capitalism is combined with socialism, as in most places in the developed world—as any student of political science must be aware.
@johngalt: Unspoken assertion? I cannot control what you may read into my statements. Neither can I do not take responsibility for what other so-called liberals say.
Aye re#22 BHO has admitted to the illegal use of marijuana and cocaine. Questions arise. 1) Has he stopped? 2) Is he now or ever been addicted to either substance?
I would answer yes to #1 (around the time of marriage?).
I would answer no to #2.
Just my opinion based on what I’ve read,observed and personally experianced.
J.G. AND LIB1 We all know name calling and false accusations emanate from both sides. Can we reduce rather than escalate?
Chip Apologies for wandering off post. Obama’s core beliefs?1) As CIC safeguard American citizenry. 2) Be an advocate for those among us in need and who might otherwise not have fair and equal opportunity to acheive the American dream. Most importantly, an equal opportunity for a quality education amid a safe and healthy environment.
@Richard Wheeler:
Not likely, Rich, and not by lack of wanting it to end.