All around, this book might appeal to some kind of far-left democrat, but otherwise, it's just as bad as I've heard it was. After reading it, I am firmly convinced that he is a Communist.
Now, I do not say this lightly. As you know, I am not the kind of person who says such things lightly. (Well, maybe sometimes, but only in jest.) Now, after having read his book, I am sure. There are too many tidbits of Communist agenda-thinking to quote them all here. So I won't. I'll write my essay on it, then post that.
His book starts out with a chapter titled, tellingly, 'Republicans and Democrats'. Now if that doesn't sound partisan enough for you, let me tell you one thing: the entire chapter is partisan. So much for the 'bipartisan' President we all wanted.
Everything that has gone wrong in the country since Lincoln is the Republicans' fault. Anything good that happened is the Democrats' doing. That is how partisan-divided he is. And the Democrats can do no wrong.
For instance- on page 39, he states- "The Republican Party has been able to consistently win elections not by expanding its base but by vilifying Democrats, driving wedges into the electorate, energizing its right wing, and disciplining those who stray from the party line."
And...Democrats don't do those things? Give me a break.
In Chapter three, he speaks about the Constitution.
That chapter was pretty infuriating. His whole gist was that the Constitution is a 'living document'. In other words- a nice token piece. In fact, he spends almost the entire chapter talking not about the Constitution but about some Senator friend, the filibuster, and more partisan issues.
Finally, he gets down to it, and then he has nothing more illuminating to offer than the fact that he thinks the Founding Fathers couldn't possibly think that a Republic that worked in their time could work now. It can. It can, and it will, and it would be great if you'd just shrink government back to it's proscribed size!
But what was really disturbing was his passage on page 91- "They conclude that the Constitution itself was largely a happy accident... that we can never hope to discern the Founders' 'original intentions' since the intentions of Jefferson were never those of Hamilton, and those of Hamilton differed greatly from those of Adams; that because the 'rules' of the Constitution were contingent on time and place and the ambitions of the men who drafted them, our interpretation of the rules will necessarily reflect the same contingency, the same raw competition, the same imperatives- cloaked in high-minded phrasing- of those factions that ultimately prevail. ... so I see a certain appeal to this shattering of myth, to the temptation to believe that the constitutional text doesn't constrain us much at all, so that we are free to assert our own values unencumbered by fidelity to the stodgy traditions of a distant past."
Not only is that an incredible run-on sentence, but the part I have boldened is rather frightening. The idea that somehow we shouldn't be 'constrained' by the 'stodgy traditions' of the Founding Fathers is frightening.
And that our President believes this? It's getting scarier by the second!
Another thing he does constantly throughout his book that annoys me to no end- he constantly compares himself to people like Lincoln, FDR, and Martin Luther King.
His chapter on 'Opportunity' was probably the worst bit of socialist-economy drivel I've ever read. I won't bore you- or infuriate you- with the details/quotes, but let me say that this was what convinced me. Every other page it was 'spread the wealth around'. I can't say as I've ever seen so much 'spreading around' as is in his book. Of course, I've never read Karl Marx, so I can't say definitively. Karl Marx might have him beat by a few. He bashes the 'Ownership Society'- basically, the government isn't going to help you- as being unfeeling to poor people.
Let me say, President Obama, that I care about the poor. I would more than willing to do something for them, in fact, I have been thinking of starting some sort of ministry. But I should not be forced to do that via my taxes. That is so wrong, so contrary to every tenet of America that it isn't even American at all. And if it is American, it's some sort of twisted, icky American that I don't want in my lifetime, or my children's, or even my great-great-great grandchildren's!!
He acts as if capitalism is virtually worthless. And it is, in it's current socialism-diluted state. Let us look at a perfect example of capitalist society in our lifetime. The drug industry.
Now, before you all fly off the handle and accuse me of drug-dealing, I am not involved in drugs. I have simply heard other people- those who should know- talking about it. When a person is dealing drugs, they sometimes dilute it with another substance to make more, hence make more money. But if the consumers of the drugs find out, that dealer will be basically boycotted. He will then go out of business.
Perfect, beautiful, pure capitalism.
If the consumer is unhappy, he stops buying from that person who made him unhappy. There is nothing wrong with such a system, except when the government starts 'regulating' everything. Yet, that is what Obama wishes to do to a greater extent than ever before!
He also spoke about energy- of course- and why we need to be 'independent'!! Know how we're going to be 'independent'?! By following Brazil's lead, and using ethanol! So our corn/sugar/wheat prices can skyrocket! Sounds great.
His chapter about race was yet more infuriating. He spoke about the 'race divide' constantly. Sorry, Mr. President, but there is no 'racial divide' any longer. The only 'racial divide' is the one that blacks have fooled themselves into. I have black friends. Some of the sweetest little kids I know are black.
I also don't like his attitude of condesencion. He constantly tells the black people who might be reading his book that they need help, "but I made it because...I'm special!!"
I won't talk about his foreign policy chapter because I've said it all before, and I'm sure it's getting redundant by now.
So, I am now convinced-
- He is a Communist
- He does not agree with the Constitution, making his oaths virtually obsolete, probably
- He has no idea what he's talking about
That's it in a nutshell. If you care to be horribly infuriated, go ahead and read the book. Get back to me then. ;) If not, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it....