What I want to do is take a brief historical interlude here that might explain both these observations, albeit not in a way that Obama’s campaign will particularly want you to know.

Back in the first half of the 20^th century, the Communist Party sought to establish their own deadly form of government throughout the world, believing themselves to be the ultimate end of evolutionary development in human government, and thus inevitable. Their goal was to hasten the inevitable to its final conclusion, to wit, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability. This worldview is vastly deficient in its ability to describe the realities of the world, and has failed miserably every time it has been implemented. Nevertheless, in their efforts to establish Communism, they left clear records of their stratagems.

In the latter half of the 20^th century, one of the men who helped reveal the Communist’s plans was a Dr. Fred Schwarz. In his book, You Can Trust Communists (to be Communists), Dr. Schwarz points out the following (emphases added):

The Communist formula for effective action is a simple one. It may be summed up: Discover what people want, promise it to them, and go to work to get it for them that you may come to power over them. This is the Communist program of action in any situation.

            In Marxist schools the Communists study the groups that compose a given society. They study the emotions of each group, their longings and their grievances, and they devise a program to exploit these ambitions and resentments. They believe that each group of people is so short sighted and so selfishly motivated that, provided you are working in the interests of their most pressing desires in the immediate environment, they will pay no attention to what you are promising and promoting at a distance.

            The Communist is not at all disturbed by the fact that he may be working simultaneously for two groups with conflicting interests and objectives. This is not inconsistency; it is the application of science.

            The Communists have one objective–to come to power. They will do whatever is necessary for them to achieve this goal.

Does any of this sound familiar? Note the emphasis on the emotional, the visceral, and not the cognitive and cerebral. If you think about it, you might reject it. Dr. Schwarz then continues,

Speaking at a girl’s school in Dallas, Texas, I outlined to them the Communist formula for advance: Find out what people want, promise it to them, and go to work to get it for them in order to come to power over them. One girl asked the very natural question, “If Communists promise people all sorts of thing but do not fulfill their promises when they come to power, why are they not thrown out?” I replied, “If I get into this room by promising you girls that I have a lotion that will make each of you very beautiful, and if, as soon as I get in here, I pull out a machine gun and train it on you, why don’t you throw me out?” Communism is, in essence, the fulfillment of the dearest ambitions of the populace, and retaining power by the efficient use of force.

This is one reason we don’t want to let any more leftist Democrats into office. Our only protection to date has been our Constitution, and even that has been frayed at the edges by activist judges appointed by leftists. He continues,

Their program of deception is so often successful for two reasons. In the first place, as far as people can observe in the local situation, the Communists are sincere and keep their promises. It is a characteristic of Communist conduct to work hard and sacrificially for the immediate needs of the group they are endeavoring to exploit.

The appearance of sincerity, and of really caring for people, is just that: appearance only. While they may keep their promises, it is a case of being careful what you wish for. If you give up your freedom to get you wish, is it really worth it?

For those not familiar with Communist philosophy, a second very important point is the leftist doctrine of the dialectic nature of progress. I will let Dr. Schwarz explain:

Dialectical progress takes place in a certain pattern. The Communist slogan is: “Nature acts dialectically.” Wishing to advance dialectically in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintances, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrupt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forward-backward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically.

            The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving, we will obviously be deceived.

            The Communist method of advance may be likened to the hammering of a nail. It is a very foolish person who brings the hammer down with a crashing, resounding blow and then keeps pushing. When the first blow has spent itself, back must go the hammer in preparation for the next blow. A person seeing the reverse movement of the hammer as an isolated act in time and not understanding the process of which this was a part, might find it difficult to believe that this hammer was driving in the nail. When he sees the backward swing as portion of a complete process, he realizes that the withdrawal is as important as the downward thrust to the realization of the objective.

Realize that Barack Obama’s goal (as is that of the Democratic party) is to gain the power of the presidency. Then compare the observations with which we began this post with the strategy and philosophy outlined above, and you tell me if Mr. Obama’s connections to leftists and his leftist record of what little he has done professionally makes any more sense to you. As an experiment, replace the word “Communist” in the above extracts with the word “Democrat” or “Obama” and see if it conforms to what you read in the New York Times.