Obama is radical leftist – writer

Jerome Corsi, author of the controversial bestseller “The Obama nation”, accuses Barack Obama of radical leftism, but critics say the book contains factual errors and is ‘racially charged.’

“Barack Obama is connected with the leftist radical policies."

“The Amero-currency is coming and a new world order may be taking shape."

Dr. Jerome Corsi is an investigative journalist and author, and he says he has the facts to back those claims up.

RT: Before Obama became President you wrote a book ‘The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality.’ What is this book all about, and what’s your beef with Barack Obama?

Jerome Corsi: Well, the book is a real study of Barack Obama’s past, and as the subtitle says, he had a very far leftist upbringing and also political education. And I was predicting in the book that Barack Obama would rule as President not from the centre as a pragmatic politician much like President Clinton had, another Democrat, but more from a radical and far ideological left. And I was also predicting in the book that there’d be a great deal of emphasis in the media and the White House to pump up the Persona of Barack Obama rather than just the policy, which again I think we’re seeing. I felt the book was a very strong biography, and very accurate in terms what it predicted we’d see in his presidency.

RT: Now, you did say in the book that Barack Obama is connected with radical-radical policies, that he has extensive connections to Islam. What do you base these claims on?

J.C.: Let's just start with the radical politics. One of Barack Obama’s mentors, the one that he talks about in his own autobiography, is Frank Marshall Davis. He was a long-time member of the Communist party, was a very far leftist radical poet and a journalist from Chicago, and wrote two autobiographical pornographic books. And Barack Obama openly talks about it in the autobiography “Dreams from my Father” – he and his grandfather who knew and spent time with Frank Marshall Davis, drank whisky together, smoked marihuana, and talked about Communist politics. And that's when Barack Obama was in high school. And I trace Barack Obama’s radical leftist roots all the way through Saul Alinsky’s organization that he worked for in Chicago, developing community projects. Saul Alinsky wrote rules for radicals, taught that redistribution of wealth was the aim of gaining power – that’s a radical socialist ideal – and Barack Obama told the same to Joe the Plumber during the campaign: He was going to re-distribute wealth, and I think now in the presidency we’re seeing massive social welfare programs and taxation, which is really a form of class warfare, when Barack Obama says he wants to tax the rich. So again what I predicted in terms of the radical nature of his politics is being born out in his presidency.

RT: Well, speaking of taxing and those policies, Barack Obama recently came up with a new plan that would basically tax US companies that are making money abroad, so they would tax their profits abroad. And of course, this may create a clash between big business and the White House. What do you think of this policy?

J.C.: This is part of the tax havens that President Obama says he wants to clamp down on. And of course, initially it is a very populist idea.

People say 'well, tax havens for the rich or corporations hiding money.' But when you really dig into it, a lot of US corporations manage money in international settings, which is part of their necessary cash management system. And if that's clamped down on, if many multi-national corporations lose the ability to operate with off-shore money in various ways, we could lose those corporations.

So again it’s one of those populist ideas that sounds good when you first hear it, but when you really get into the details of it, it’s again just another indication that Barack Obama is spending way beyond the government means, incurring trillions of dollars worth of debt, unprecedented levels. So I guess the government is greedy for any kind of tax that they can confiscate in any kind of way. This going after the off-shore resources and corporations is just another one of those ideas to confiscate funds.

RT: It is interesting, because a lot of those financiers, the big corporations, did support Barack Obama, and thought that he would be able to tackle this economic crisis better than John McCain would. And when he would speak about this, about levelling the playing field throughout his campaign, they just thought it was campaign rhetoric, they didn't really take him seriously, and now we have this, so what's going to happen?

J.C.: Well, again it is part of what I wrote in the “Obama Nation." I took seriously Barack Obama’s people background, political education in Illinois, where the measures he had gone for were really for the re-distribution of wealth, and now that's what he is doing. But there are major losses here. We are now hearing about dealerships that are being shut down. Again there is a major disappointment, and there should be in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, and Barack Obama is not creating the jobs that he promised. I see no way the economic plan Barack Obama has proposed will create jobs. What they should do is cut taxes, but ideologically Barack Obama can’t bring himself around to that.

RT: Does this make him a social democrat? Is the United States’ economic system moving towards something like Europe?

J.C.: Definitely, I think we are becoming a social democracy, in terms of the European model, and I think it reflects a kind of anti-private enterprise attitude that I expected and predicted in the 'Obama Nation' we would see from a president Obama.

RT: Now, you also authored a book called 'The Late Great USA – the Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada' – about the North-American Union. Can you explain to our viewers, what it is all about, this North-American Union?

J.C.: Well, it stems from the North-American Integration effort, it’s been going on since NAFTA [North America Free Trade Agreement] was passed. And it’s focused on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was declared in Waco, Texas.

No law, no treaty, a web site – we had some 20 working groups of our bureaucrats, with Canada and Mexico – integrating and harmonizing our laws, with no congressional or insider knowledge.

And, as it’s been exposed, I think the security and prosperity partnership agenda has largely fallen into disarray. There is now a large amount of speculation, although all the government think-tanks and the government denied it was happening – that we could not be creating a North-American Union on the European-Union style out of the trade agreement, the same way the EU was created out of the European Economic Community – 'Oh, no! It could never be happening!'

Well, now that that agenda has been largely derailed, you can point to a dozen think-tanks, to their acknowledging that North American integration, politically and economically, was always the objective of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

And now, the big debate raging – I have just written about it in WorldNetDaily [ article: New center revives North America agenda Presses Obama administration to advance continental integration ] – is whether Canada wants Mexico dumped and wants a bilateral integration of North America to occur first with the United States and Canada. But the North American integration agenda is for full speed ahead, and Barack Obama has abandoned his campaign promises to renegotiate NAFTA.

But the truth is that Barack Obama has done nothing for the workers who lost their jobs to NAFTA; he’s not maintained his campaign promises, and I see that there will be greater efforts under the Obama administration for Mexican trucks coming back into the United States, and you get full-speed ahead with the North American integration agenda.

RT: Now, you also speak a lot about the “New World Order." What is this all about? And who is involved in this?

J.C.: Well, this is the subject of my next book which is going to be out in October, “America for Sale." I point to the globalists. I mean, the “New World Order” – when I was first writing about it, it had only been present in George H[erbert] W[alker] Bush’s speeches to the Congress, mentioning the “New World Order” [11 Sep 1990  , 6 Mar 1991 ].

Now it’s all over the place. I mean, you’ve had Henry Kissinger say that there’s a global economic downturn, and it’s time for a “New World Order” – you’ve had it proclaimed.

I say in the book – dozens of now major political and economic figures who are calling for a “New World Order." There are open discussions of the dollar being dropped as a foreign exchange currency.

So all the themes are being developed – that there is going to be attack on the dollar rate. We’ll also recreate the USA. I predicted the current economic recession – the recession we are in. And I said the dollar would inevitably be tagged. I don’t see the dollar as being maintained by the globalsts for long as a standard for foreign exchange currency.

RT: There has been talk about that Amero-currency. What is that all about?

J.C.:Well, the Amero currency was proposed first by Herbert [G.] Grubel, [in 1999  ] who was a top economist in Canada – for one of the think-tanks in Canada – who wrote that we needed to have a North American currency equivalent to the Euro. So there is a lot of legitimate political science and also economic discussion on regional currency.

I have gotten a hold of the meetings of various North American forums, including government officials that attended the Bush administration – I am sure they will attend similar forums held by the Obama administration.

And our bureaucrats are set in State Department meetings with these issues of North American integration, integration across the Atlantic – the Transatlantic Economic Community. So, these ideas are open to discussion in government and economics, in think-tanks. But yet the government wants to play “hide it, hide it, hush-hush."

But I go beyond the public relations smokescreen, to see the reality, and what the governments really do.

RT: Now, a lot of people describe you as a “conspiracy theorist.” Do you get offended by that? How do you respond to that?

J.C.: I think it’s amusing. I think it’s just a matter of name-calling, a propaganda technique aimed at fearmongering, arousing prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against groups, beliefs, ideas, or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name-calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if we leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique, try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).]- it’s the last resort of someone who has lost the argument. So, if they are calling me a 'conspiracy theorist,' I think they’ve already lost the debate. If they could refute what I was saying by pointing out counterevidence or counterargument, they’d do so.

My work is always thoroughly documented, and I am showing you references and statistics and facts. And if my critics have to resort to name-calling, I figure I won the debate.