By Al Benson Jr.
Over the years I have read quite a bit of material written by Gary North. I usually find myself in agreement with much of what he says. Last year when I wrote my seventeen part series on why the Constitution was inimical to states rights on http://www.cakewalkblogs.com/antiestablishmenthistory/ I quoted several passages from his informative book Conspiracy In Philadelphia Origins of the United States Constitution in those articles. For any that are interested, this book can be found on the Internet.
Dr. North recently wrote an article that appeared on http://teapartyeconomist.com entitled Obama’s Brand of Marxism. Dr. North seems to feel that Obama’s brand of Marxism is somewhat of a hybrid and would not be completely in keeping with Karl Marx’s purist views, and he might be correct there. His article demonstrates why he feels this way, and I can’t totally disagree.
However, the extreme far left environment he was raised in, including his time under his mentor, Communist Frank Marshall Davis and his conscious associations with those on the far left in his early years certainly shaped him into what he is today. Whether he’s a hybrid Marxist or not I believe the Marxist worldview has definitely shaped him and continues to permeate his thinking even if he does not fully act out all of Marx’s personal whims.
However, the purpose of this is not to try to argue with Dr. North over how orthodox Obama’s Marxism is or isn’t. As the years have passed I have learned much from reading what Dr. North has written and his article on the Tea Party Economist has several interesting insights in it that are worth looking at.
North makes an interesting statement when he says “The key to understanding Obama is not Marxism. The key is that he and his wife both lost their licenses to practice law in Illinois.” He notes that the Obamas were “both social climbers from early in their lives.” He observed that their time on campus “allowed liberal academia to fill its mandated, self-imposed quota system. They are both a lot like Al Sharpton, but their original market was academia, not the media.”
North continued: “They got to the top socially by getting certified by way of Columbia University, Princeton University, and law school. They had it made. And then…whammo! No more certification. They had learned to manipulate academia, but they failed to manipulate the Illinois Bar Association. First it was Michelle in 1994. Then Obama in 2008. The mainstream media have, of course, covered this up, but Google uncovers it. (http://bit.ly/ObamaDe-Certified) From the day that he surrendered his license in January, 2008, his handlers had him on a tight leash. They still do. He has a deep-set need: to keep concealed the reason for his retroactive de-certification.” So he has something to hide, which should be obvious from the dearth of any possible records for the public to look at pertaining to any aspect of his life, from his compromised birth certificate forward.
Widespread speculation on the Internet is noted by Dr. North as to why Obama will not release his undergraduate transcripts. North observes that the “name on these records cannot be successfully altered retroactively. It was not the name he told the Illinois Bar Association was his. He was asked if he had ever used a different name. He said yes. Academia did not care. The Bar Association does.” And so his handlers can hold this over his head. He does what they want—or else. North has said that Obama had done nothing that the pro-oil, pro-banking Establishment is not happy with. In other words, for all his “hope and change” rhetoric he must stifle his Marxist tendencies to do what the big boys want done or he’s in trouble. He knows where his bread is buttered. Dr. North notes the bi-partisan nature of the Establishment’s “welfare-warfare state” and he feels that labeling Obama as a Marxist detracts from that. I have to agree with him that the Establishment’s whole collectivist effort is bi-partisan, which is why I label both Democrats and Republicans as Marxist. In fact the Republicans have probably been in that camp longer than the Democrats have. Read Lincoln’s Marxists (Pelican Publishing, Gretna, Louisiana.)
Dr. North closes out his article by saying that: “They key to understanding the next four years of Obama is his desire to get a lifetime of speaking engagements at $100,000 each. He is a professional politician. If he does not go beyond what his handlers demand, he is set for life. If he does go beyond this, the whole story of his career—his two names, and his refusal to admit that other name when he applied to colleges and also to the Illinois Bar—somehow will be leaked. No more speaking engagements.” Many, me included, have contended over the past few years that, should Obama ever slip the traces and think he can do his own thing, all the muck that the media has so carefully concealed from us will come flying out and hit the fan big time. After all, remember what happened to Richard Nixon? At some point he decided that he would do his own thing rather than what the Rockefellers and Kissinger wanted him to do. The result was Watergate. If Obama strays too far from the corral you might just see Obamagate.
Interestingly enough, after his appearance at the Republican convention in Tampa, Clint Eastwood was quoted in an article written by Paul Miller that appeared in The Carmel Pine Cone, the local paper where Eastwood lives. The article quotes Eastwood as saying that “President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
Based on the information contained in Gary North’s recent article such an assessment is not all that far off the target. I still contend that Obama is a Marxist, whether a totally doctrinaire one or not I don’t think matters in the long run. Whether he will be able to stifle his Marxist tendencies and continue to play along with the agenda the Establishment has set for him will be interesting to see.
I noted in an earlier article about the possibility of an “October Surprise” should Obama think he might lose the election. I think his Marxist side would definitely lean in that direction. Whether his puppet masters would be willing to let him do something like that and how that would affect their agenda is another question. Stay tuned!