I wouldn't characterize the linked article as "analytical". Political, yes. Polemic, yes. Well reasoned, no. It contained false dichotomies, false and/or unsubstantiated statements and allegations, and vague and meaningless generalities among other "crimes against logic".
I'm not an Obama fan. But it is simply inaccurate to say that that he "campaigned relentlessly against domestic energy production". Sorry. The article then uses this inaccuracy and calls it an "internal contradiction" in the face of rising gas prices. And then argues that internal contradictions are evidence of Marxism.
Hmm. Let's use some analogies to analyze both "internal contradictions" and the Marxist leap. Personally, I'm in favor of domestic drilling. However, those who oppose it do so for reasons other than the rise and fall of gas prices. To make their case against drilling for completely other reasons, and then support drilling when the price of gas fluctuates, would be an "internal contradiction". To be "pro life" and pro death penalty could be deemed an "internal contradiction"-- even though it's certainly understandable and respectable to hold both views. To be adamantly tough on crime but want compassion for a wayward loved one is an "internal contradiction," but doesn't make someone a Marxist. To want to slash federal jobs but "not in my district" is an "internal contradiction" but certainly doesn't make Speaker Boehner a Marxist.
So against "domestic
energy production" (not true) = internal contradiction = evidence of Marxism.
Sounds good-- 'til you think about it.
Redefining our foreign policy and defense policies (regardless) of past alliances? Although our stated foreign policy has always been about promoting freedom around the world, in other ways, Obama as well as other U.S. presidents have done so without a doubt. For example, we supported, then opposed, Noriega. We on-again and then gratefully off-again at times aided former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. We opposed, normalized relations with and opposed again Gaddafi. Obama can be faulted with having a foreign policy at odds with his campaign, though the article doesn't address this.
"Coupled with embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an 'internationalist order'"? Gee, that sort of calls for some backup content. What fringe utopian ideas specifically. What "internationalist order" ? The former President stated that he hoped democracy movements would break out in the Middle East. Is that a, "utopian internationalist order"? Without supplying supporting evidence, this is not analysis but merely political rhetoric.
The "talk, talk; fight, fight" line sounds like (a) both party's political playbook; (b) the high school cheer leading squad; (c) all of the above. Polemicists used to argue
equally without substantiation that the former administration raised terror alert levels to increase the anxiety level so the electorate wouldn't change horses. (And BTW, talk radio could be described as "talk, talk," but what of it?)
I do agree the article was fascinating, especially it's placement in The American Thinker. Like so many political articles on both sides of the fence, it seems to be targeted primarily to people who don't think critically for themselves.
If, as Richie stated,
"...the brilliant analysis of the article speaks for itself in illustrating the correlation of Obama's actions with tried and true marxist principles that anyone with a brain can follow"
Then I must throw my lot with Scarecrow, go to the Wizard and plead, "If I only had a brain"!