Image 01 Image 03

Revisiting Obama’s past

Revisiting Obama’s past

Would the public be ready to listen?

Now that Giuliani has opened the door by questioning Obama’s love of country, perhaps the topic of Obama’s past connections to Communism, Ayers, Wright, and Alinsky could be reopened, heard, and understood by more of the public for what they might actually signify.

In 2008 those reports were widely dismissed and/or minimized by the MSM, and candidates were reluctant to go there as well. Since then, the topic has mostly remained the province of bloggers and talk show hosts, reaching those already convinced, or mocked by liberals and the left as the rantings of a far-out fringe.

Most people who read about those influences back in 2008 dismissed them as either false or inconsequential, helped along by their relative unfamiliarity with Obama himself. It all sounded so far out: weird, wild, preposterous. McCarthy-esque, too, and you know how people look on the McCarthy era these days.

Obama—such a nice young man, so well-spoken, conservative-dressing, with a pleasant and heartfelt message of coming together with no red or blue America. That made those tales of strange ideological bedfellows sound like tinfoil territory. One had to really study Obama in depth to understand that behind this smoke there might be some real fire. Otherwise, there was no context in which the stories could fit, and without a context they were easy to dismiss.

People who wanted to believe in Obama (and some of this was the understandable desire to elect America’s first black president) had no motivation to look deeply into the past and find a thread connecting it all, and little reason to believe it really mattered.

But now if certain politicians (Giuliani, for example, who has the added advantage of not running for office) bring these topics up again, not only are people familiar with them from before and so they no longer sound so strange, but more importantly Obama has given us the context: his six years of governing.

Many people who originally supported him are doubting him or confused by him, and could be a lot more open to actually listening to facts about his past and understanding that they are probably meaningful and not just some random youthful associations.

Of course, Obama is not up for re-election, so what does it matter? The damage is done. Well, it matters for the next election, and maybe for elections after that. The lessons learned wouldn’t just be about Obama. They would be about not trusting the press, both in its statements and its omissions. They would be about the fact that Republicans shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand even when they say “mean” things. It’s about the surface appearance versus what’s happening deeper down.

It’s about how very deceptive members of the far left can be about things so basic as their identity as members of the far left.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



“Now that Giuliani has opened the door by questioning Obama’s love of country…”

What is so amazing is that it took Rudy this many years to say it.

With us tolerating the triumvirate of of GOP putzes Boehner, McTurtle and Pee Wee Prebus, anything anybody says will be too little, too late, as President Jarrett and Vice President Obama simply stroll their way to making their warped dreams become a nightmare reality.

If they were honest with the public as to intentions, they would never get elected.

Their policies have not proven better than Republicans.

Rather than go to the trouble to argue on the merits, they instead use identity to wedge the populace apart and mobilize groups they can then mislead into action.

Are moderate Democrats that respect liberal values willing and able to confront the anti-americanism of critical thinkers among them? Or is it just too easy to give in to the corruption and win elections with a blend of Nixon and Kardashian?

legacyrepublican | March 1, 2015 at 2:45 pm

I have discovered Obama really does love his country.

And Kenya loves him too!

Meh. Always a mistake when generals try to refight the last war.

Get a good candidate, then win the election — by focusing 1st on important issues that our candidate is strong on, and 2nd on ways the Democratic candidate is weak. Then get good laws and policies in place and appoint good judges and bureaucrats.

The battle over who Barack Obama really is or was will now be fought in the biography and nonfiction sections of

On the other hand… it’s really, really early to be focused on November 2016 — and Obama’s personal popularity has always been a big part of his strength. So… maybe I’m wrong. If the MSM starts to see Obama as a drag on Hillary in 2016, it could be really, really fun to watch.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to clintack. | March 1, 2015 at 6:21 pm

    It is probably important because there seems to be a significant slice of the electorate that tends to overcompensates for the weaknesses of the last President. For that reason I expect that in 2016 more voters will not only prefer the candidate with the most solid record of executive experience in 2016, but they will also be more proactive consumers of information. Watch for more voters doing their own research on the candidates, instead of taking the media’s word for anything.

    Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
    -George Santayana

    Those who continue to donate to the GOP are simply doomed.

Bitterlyclinging | March 1, 2015 at 3:03 pm

Obama has a lock on 37 per cent of America, they’re not going to be swayed by anything he does.
“Those people receiving welfare and other government assistance along with the working poor constitute a critical mass that if manipulated properly could lead to putting a (Communist) in office and maintaining him there for a considerable time.”
Both Hitler and Stalin had a Pied Piper like affect over the children of Hamelin on their subjects
We’ve heard and seen the Jessee Watters interviews of the common folk on the O’Reilly Factor. Watters claims he does not pre select the folk he interviews either. Obama’s climbing into a milk and fruitloop filled bathtub with Glozelle Green or quacking like a duck would just reinforce their image of how cool they see Obama as.

I once had a psychologist friend tell me, “We are never really surprised”.

And, looking back at my own life, I have to say she was dead right. I have never been surprised by a false friend, crazy lover, or toxic relation. Regardless of how much I DIDN’T want to recognize what they were telling me, my little voices have ALWAYS told the truth. Unvarnished, essential, and often SUPER unwelcome, but always there.

Now, in the case of Barracula, and Ball-less Bill before him, I KNEW all along. I was once very inclined to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. There was all that “New Deemocrat” sheep’s clothing he’d spun up, and I’d read some good things in his early speeches. But then one day, I saw him, and I had a visceral reaction of repulsion and disgust. Now, I am a VERY rational critter. It is what I trust most. But I also have LEARNED to trust and listen to my subjective side. That’s where a lot of our subconscious stuff is reported, and it can be extremely valid and valuable.

With Barracula, I’d read his own words, looked into his own poor pathological childhood (even WORSE than Clinton’s), and I knew he was a dangerous narcissistic Collectivist and racist.

Someone called him the “first post-American President”. I believe that fits. And there are post-American voters who’d stampede to the polls to vote for him again, though not many, thank gawd.

    gregjgrose in reply to Ragspierre. | March 1, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    The famous lexicographer Dr. Johnson was discovered one day by Mrs. Johnson kissing one of the serving maids.

    “Why, Dr. Johnson,” said his wife, “I am surprised.”

    “No,” said the recreant husband, “that is not exactly right dear. I am surprised; you are astonished!”

mumzieistired | March 1, 2015 at 5:47 pm

Perhaps someone could look into the funding of his education. It might go a long way toward explaining his policy efforts.

No look at the past would affect Obama now, but, as the author says, it would demonstrate a lot about media and Republican credibility.

Gremlin1974 | March 1, 2015 at 7:10 pm

Honestly, I think this will be something that someone does after he is out of office. I would also suspect that there will be several interesting revelations regarding his past.

Whether it starts now or after he leaves office, it is critical that this clown’s past is examined closely. A public post-mortem on this disaster of an administration will be a first step in healing the incalculable damage he has wrought.

And, like a dog that shit on the rug, the press needs to have it’s nose rubbed in the steaming pile that they foisted on the American public through their complete and utter failure to do their jobs. Shaming the clowns who failed to vet this jerk-off may go a long way towards destroying their credibility and thus preventing them from leading the LIV’s over a cliff again.

It needs to be done. He is not going to shut up and disappear when he leaves office. He has the potential to be the most destructive ex-President we have ever had. It’s not over on January 21, 2017. He will still need to be stopped. Let’s get on with it.