Why is POTUS at war with US

James Lewis wrote this piece for American Thinker a few days ago. It adds to the body of work out there which attempts to explain the very strange behavior of Barack Obama. Strange that is if we assume that his goals are to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous.

That is, after all, the goal that every other president has pursued. Even the extraordinarily bad ones like Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter were at least trying to keep the nation safe, free and prosperous.

But not Obama. Only someone with the limited knowledge base and lack of sophistication of a relatively young child could actually believe that things like closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and bringing the dangerous terrorists being held there into the US prison system is a good idea. Or believe that trying the 9/11 mastermind in a civilian criminal court in New York City is a better idea than trying him before a military tribunal.

Only someone like the above mentioned credulous child could believe that the government could take over auto companies and manage them better than the free market - despite the disastrous examples of the government run auto industries in East Germany, the Soviet Union and even the United Kingdom.

Or that a bloodthirsty enemy whose minds are in the grip of a 7th century religious ideology which tells them that we must die both as individuals and as a culture because we have emancipated our women and refuse to stone homosexuals and behead those who criticize Allah, his prophet or his book will experience a change of heart because our leader travels the world apologizing for our past acts of malfeasance in which we actually had the gall to stand up and defend our vital interests and our allies.

No, the sane adult mind finds Barack Obama's actions since taking office to be extraordinarily difficult to understand if we start from the position that Obama is a patriotic American, however misguided. So the minds of political observers have began to think what would have before been unthinkable. That perhaps the president isn't screwing up the country by accident.

Which brings us back to James Lewis and his essay, Obama the Red Avenger.

The French called Hitler a revanchiste -- a Kaiser soldier of World War I aching to avenge his old defeat. Hitler made no secret of his desire for revenge. He made it a Nazi slogan. Well, you can have ideological revanchisme as well -- for instance, a Marxist determination to take revenge for America's victory against worldwide Communism in the Cold War.

The word "Marxist" is now used as a kind of a sly boast in academia; I just talked with a professor who calls himself a "Marxist historian" and smiles to himself when he says it. He obviously thinks he's a hero by being a Marxist in America. But according to Marxist historians themselves, Red regimes killed at least 100 million people in "crimes, terror and repression," with still more dying today in North Korea. That's not even counting the dead and wounded in wars fought by Communist regimes.

Obama's early life indicates that young Barry may have been brought up as a Red Avenger against America. We know that he talks like an anti-capitalist and an anti-Constitutionalist, and that he compulsively apologizes for American actions during the Cold War. The Cold War was not something we started -- it was started by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other totalitarian mass murderers long before the Korean War and the Vietnam War, our two hot proxies in the Cold War.

What we haven't understood is how deeply Obama was indoctrinated from childhood onward in the war against America. But every intelligence agency in the world has to have figured it out, because it's all in the public record. Leftists around the world have also known it from day one, and that includes leading Democrats. Obama was not an unknown to Democrat Party apparatchiks. Or the media. Only the American people were kept in the dark. The media and the Democrats are still doing their Obama cover-up today and hoping they will get away with it.

Why is Obama so deeply, emotionally opposed to America's defense of freedom and democracy in the Cold War? Because Barry Soetoro was born in 1961 and lived in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta from age six to ten, the years 1967-1971 --- right after the bloodiest civil war in Indonesian history, which took place from 1965 to 1967. The Indonesian Communist Party, the PKI, was wiped out and massacred during that civil war. There is absolutely no way a left-wing family living in Jakarta could not have been in a constant uproar during those years, even after the massacres had died down. After all, Barry's parents were active sympathizers, if not party members themselves, as was his biological father

Indonesia was host to millions of ethnic Chinese, some of whom were slaughtered in the "communal violence" which followed a failed coup. China was then in the middle of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, which killed from 50 to 70 million people. Ann Dunham, Lolo Soetoro and Barry Soetoro were living in the very midst of the hottest front line between the West and totalitarian Communism.

Indonesia's dictator General Sukarno was overthrown in 1965 by either the Communist Party (the PKI) or the Indonesian army and Islamic parties -- and probably by all three. The PKI was the third biggest Communist Party in the world outside of the Soviet Union and Communist China. (See The Year of Living Dangerously.) PKI members were killed in the resulting riots and massacres throughout 1965 and 1966, starting in Jakarta, where Barry Soetoro's family lived. Imaging living in Atlanta, Ga., right after General Sherman finished marchin' through Georgia, and not knowing anything about it.

There is simply no way those earth-shattering events could not have touched Barry Soetoro's life in Jakarta from the age of six to ten. Barry's temporary dad Lolo Soetoro was originally a supporter of General Sukarno and the Left; Sukarno's party had sent Lolo to Hawaii to get a graduate degree, where he met Ann Dunham. There is no real safety in such conditions. Revenge killings happened after World War II in Europe and after the Civil War in the United States.

The big question is, Why did Ann Dunham risk bringing her young child to Jakarta? She must either have been utterly naïve politically, or, much more likely, she knew that she and Lolo were protected by powerful political forces.

Ann Dunham was at least an active fellow traveler with the Communist Party. Remember, this was just fifteen years after the death of Stalin and the American domestic reaction to Stalinist infiltration, now dubbed "McCarthyism." We now know with historical certainty that the U.S. government, including the State Department and the White house, was in fact infiltrated by Stalin's Communist Party members, and that secrets of U.S. nuclear bombs were instantly passed to the Soviet Union by Manhattan Project member Klaus Fuchs, who was honored by the East Germany Communist Party when he went back there. Stalinist Communists were also very powerful in Hollywood, the newspapers, and the universities.

Barry's childhood and education under the guardianship of Communist Party representative Frank Marshall Davis, followed by an endless parade of far Leftist mentors from Hawaii to Harvard and Chicago, were all shaped by an identical political narrative. Every adult he ever knew told the same story. Everybody hated the same satanic enemy: American capitalism -- also known as freedom and democracy -- the CIA, the U.S. military, Senator Joe McCarthy, President Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon. We now know that Nixon was overthrown by the American Left using the Watergate scandal, including the Washington Post's Ben Bradlee, in close coordination with the FBI's Assistant Director Mark Felt, who was Woodward and Bernstein's Deep Throat.

The Jesuits used to say, "Give us a boy before he is ten and we will have him for life." That's why the Ranting Reverend Wright's Church of Marxism was such a natural place for the Obamas to go every Sunday and bring up their own girls. It's what they were used to; it had that old home feeling.

When kids believe that their mothers and fathers are in danger, they often imagine themselves to be the saviors -- they can get a Savior Complex. (Sound familiar?) Children in abusive families often feel that way. Barry Soetoro grew up needing to rescue his side in the Cold War -- the Red side.

Human beings who think they are world saviors are narcissists from day one because they believe they have God-like powers. How else can you Save the Planet? How else can you "keep the seas from rising," as Obama said in his acceptance speech to the Democrats? Narcissism is a standard character trait on the Left. It's one of the basic differences between ideological Leftists and conservatives. Edmund Burke, the granddaddy of Anglo-American conservatism, pointed that out in his most important book, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1791). Conservatives are generally normal people. Ideological Leftists are ambitious World Saviors who turn out to kill a lot of people who resisted being saved by coercive force. Can you think of any American conservative who acts like Obama?

Take a kid with a savior complex and raise him with an endless slew of Leftist mentors, from Mom onwards. He is the savior child as far as they are concerned -- the Red Avenger. He will redeem them in the bitter aftermath of the defeat of Communism. Barack Obama has had substitute parents -- patrons who eased his way -- throughout his life, including Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Emil Jones.

Notice that I have not said that Obama is dangerous. A lot depends on defeating ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, EPA regulation of CO2, and dozens of other mad and foolish schemes.

The American political system is resilient, but we must know the truth. I believe that "the Red Avenger" is the ground truth of who Obama really is.

It's not Obama's blackness that's at issue. It's his redness.

When the facts are laid out like that it becomes all but impossible to dispute them.

Barack Obama was born into a bubble universe of profound leftism in which the United States occupied the role of evil empire. The USA was the malignant force threatening human civilization which had to be defeated if there was to be any hope of a true and lasting peace or genuine social justice for the peoples of the world.

Barack Obama never heard this worldview seriously challenged from his parents or grandparents or their friends. He never heard it challenged in school right on through his Ivy League education. He never heard it challenged by anyone in his circle of friends and associates in Chicago - men and women like Bill Ayers and his wife, both unrepentant communist terrorist bombers. He never heard it being anything but reinforced during the nearly 20 years he sat in Jeremiah Wright's church. He never heard it challenged in the daily newspapers he read or on the nightly network news broadcasts he watched or on taxpayer financed public television or radio.

And he never heard that anti-US mindset seriously challenged by any person of significance in the Democrat party.

The only serious challenge to the worldview that the United States sits like a giant poisonous spider in the center of a web of evil which reaches around the world raping, pillaging and polluting everything it touches that might have ever made it over the high walls of the Marxist compound in which Barack Obama's mind has been stewing since birth might have come from talk radio or Fox News. Two sources which Obama's ideological training would have taught him to instantly label as part of the right-wing hate machine and discount - without consideration.

Barack Obama is what he is and if the United States wishes to remain what it has been (a free and prosperous nation kept safe in a dangerous world by our willingness to defend ourselves and our allies) then we must resist with every legal means almost every action of this president.

What is wrong with the Left?

James Lewis writes in The American Thinker:

Now that neocons are being slow-roasted in effigy all over the world, this may be the right time to ask the question: Why isn't the whole Left neoconservative? Remember that neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Daniel P. Moynihan were former left-wingers who saw the light --- which only seems like common sense, after witnessing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims (Dad and Junior), and the whole mass-murdering gang of cutthroats.

After the Soviet Union crashed and no one could possibly ignore the bloody mess the Left kept making over seventy long years. So why didn't all the decent Leftists just read their Milton Friedman and grow up?

That's what the so-called neocons did, and more power to them. I take it as obvious that they were correct and morally decent, in learning to see how wrong they had been. They grew up. My question is: What happened to all the others?

Or to ask it a different way: Why is it that in Britain, of all countries, a BBC4 survey showed that the greatest philosopher of all time is considered to be ... Karl Marx? A hate-filled parasitical scribbler who spent his life in the British Museum, stoking the fires that killed 100 million people in the 20th century? What is wrong with British education that the plain facts do not shout out for themselves?

The fact that the Left never, ever learns gives the lie to all its high-falutin' claims of "idealism," "progressivism," and superior morality. There is one and only one reason the Left isn't blamed for its misdeeds: It still controls the organs of propaganda, following der Übermenschlicher Karl. Thus some 90 percent of our media functionairies are left wingers. A predominant percentage of professors and teachers are, too.

To hold on to their beliefs leftists must shut down any competing ideas, which is precisely what they do. Just take your favorite leftist friends, and tell them some obvious fact they don't want to hear. You can see it working right in front of your eyes: They just won't hear it. Like the stone idols of the Bible, they have eyes, but cannot see; ears, but cannot hear. (Ps. 115) As long as they control the dominant media, our society will keep teetering at the brink of destruction.

All this is relevant today, because the Western world has just realized (again!) that multiculturalism, the latest mass delusion from the elites, comes down to societal suicide. Ooops! In exchange for the Multiculti Cult we get the Twin Towers on 9/11, carnage in London, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali and Baghdad, nightly riots in the banlieus of France, hateful anti-Americanism throughout Europe and America, and yes, the rise of yet another version of Left Fascism, this time marked by loudly voiced race hatred and anti-Semitism. Who could be surprised? Yet nobody blames the snake-oil peddlers for those deadly toxins.

Europe is still suffering from the intellectual monopoly of socialism. "Sophisticated" Europe doesn't see any respectable alternative to the Left, since conservatism is constantly and deliberately confounded with fascism. The American Left tries to ape the Euromyth that any decent and moral person must be a Leftist --- but so far only American professors believe it. Since in the tunnel-vision of the anointed there is no alternative to themselves, if one fairy-tale of Earthly Paradise is seen to crash, another one must instantly take its place. That is why the commissars of Post-Modernism and Multiculturalism suddenly rose to power all over the West in the 1970s and 80s. The faithful had to find a new way to justify their idee fixe.

Such mental fixedness is utterly irrational. A psychiatrist would have to ask whether the people who keep peddling the same toxins over and over again are themselves deeply malevolent and destructive: Whether unconsciously they really want to murder their societies. Why else would they keep pushing toward chaos?

You see? I'm not the only one who thinks that the left is embodying some kind of societal death-wish. The one thing that the left can be counted upon to do with absolute consistency is to champion whatever cause best serves the goal of weakening Western culture. They will embrace whatever philosophical or moral or intellectual position which holds their own societies to be in the wrong. They will apply any level of double standard, or triple or quadruple standard, is required to absolve any other race, religion, culture or nation of any meaningful level of guilt while twisting themselves into pretzel shapes of illogic in their mania to blame Western, Christian, technological capitalistic civilization for any and every evil in the world.

Mr. Lewis ends his essay by asking the question:

So I ask again: Why isn't everybody on the Left a neocon? Why isn't Hillary? Chomsky? John Kerry? All those Sixties leftovers who never learned --- why are they so intellectually stuck? Have they no decency?

The self-evident answer is NO.