02/27/2008 (11:30 am)
Barack Obama: Communist???
A Communist??? What is this, 1953? Are we the Un-American Activities Committee? First he was a Muslim, now he’s a Communist? I know, I know, but please, bear with me…
I just naturally tend toward extremes, so I deliberately temper myself when I see something that strikes me as alarming. Consequently, I didn’t say a word when Hot Air posted the picture from a Fox News broadcast that showed one of Barack Obama’s campaign offices with a Cuban flag on the wall, with a stenciled image of revolutionary murderer Che` Guevara on it. Remember this?
I just figured that office would be getting a call from the Mother Ship sometime soon. Not that Obama would be all that irritated by it, but I didn’t figure it meant much besides some hard lefties were working for Obama.
I also pretty much ignored it when Politico reported that Obama had sat down with 60s radicals Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayers in a local Chicago political meeting. Those are two very scary, unrepentant terrorists, but it was 1995, he met with them once, they actually had clout in the neighborhood (both teach at the University of Chicago now), and I figured there was not going to be any serious fallout to the Obama campaign. Yes, if it had been McCain and Rev. Bob Jones it would have been front-page news on the Times for 3 days at least, but the press flacks for the Democrats, we all know it, and that’s that.
Then, I noticed this addition from Hot Air. See-Dubya there received links from readers: one showing a conference in 2002, where Obama and Ayers spoke together as two members on a panel discussing “Intellectuals in a Time of Crisis,” the other showing Obama joining the Weatherman duo giving testimonials for Rashid Khalidi, an Israel-hating Columbia professor, in 2005. And Craig Kincaid at Accuracy In Media reports that Obama and Ayers both serve on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago.
Showing up on the same panels a few times doesn’t make Obama and the Weathermen friends or associates, though the Woods Fund contact suggests they’re at least acquaintances. Sitting on the same panels does, however, suggest that Obama thinks like those two on more than one issue, which is why their paths are crossing. (I suppose it’s not theoretically impossible that Obama was called to balance other views, but balance isn’t often among the stated values of gatherings that invite ex-Weathermen, so I regard this as unlikely.)
I detest two, contradictory things: sleaze attacks and dishonest politicians. They’re contradictory because you have to read and study sleaze attacks to find dishonest politicians. When I receive a report of some background dishonesty, I research it, and if it’s false (most of them are), I get angry and write nasty letters back to the source. I’ve rejected several baleful mailings about Obama’s past that were manifestly sleazy, not to mention provably false.
But in the light of the incidents above, I’m now paying closer attention to several articles I’ve run across, which appear to be both accurate and relevant:
Lisa Schiffren at National Review discusses the phenomenon of “red diaper babies” (that is, 60s children of Communist activists,) and the likelihood that Barack Obama is one of them. She does not make the case, she just describes the phenomenon: communist activists in the late 50s and early 60s choosing to marry cross-race as an attack on bourgeois society. It’s not implausible, as Barack’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a radical activist at the University of Hawaii, having been stimulated in high school by two teachers who were reputed to have been Communists (the students referred to the hallway between their rooms as “anarchist ally”), and by a Unitarian church that sported liberal theology. See these two snippets from Tim Jones of the Chicago Tribune (here and here), that dance around the question, calling Dunham a “free thinker” and the two teachers that influenced her “members on the staff that encouraged us to think about a lot of things.” This article from the same author fills in detail, pegging the teachers as radical for the times, although by modern standards they seem like run-of-the-mill leftists.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy In Media describes an important mentor of Obama’s teenage years, who was a well-known Communist poet. Obama, in his book Dreams From My Father, writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Frank Marshall Davis, identified as a member of the CPUSA by the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, appears to have mentored young Barry from 1971 – 1979, when he left Hawaii for college. Davis’ biographer D. Kathryn Takara cites Davis’ “acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world” and how he held forth on American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. Professor Gerald Horne, contributing editor to the Marxist publication Political Affairs, muses about how future generations will note the significance of the relationship between Davis and Obama.
I’m particularly interested in Obama’s period of community activism in Chicago in the 1980s. His employer was the Gamaliel Foundation. Gamaliel, an activist organization strangely merging the teachings of Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky with those of the Apostle Paul, operates with that same sense of religious destiny that we’ve noticed in both Barack and Michelle Obama’s speeches. Alinsky counseled tapping anger as a motivator for radical change; Gamaliel’s Greg Golluzzo notes Obama’s energy in applying this tactic:
Barack was in the community… talking to the people, sensing their passion, their anger and he wanted to create an opportunity for them to express that anger and resolve the problem.”
Ryan Lizza in The New Republic, cites another of Obama’s mentors, radical organizer Mike Kruglic, admiring Obama’s skill at this sort of manipulation:
He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.
Kincaid also discusses Obama’s ties with international Socialist organizations. While Obama is not a member of any of these, he accepts the backing of Democratic Socialists of America and backs initiatives championed by Socialist International. These contacts, along with those of the Party of European Socialists, lurk behind the Democratic party’s eagerness to make the United States “become good citizens of the world community.” Invariably this means for the US to cooperate with neo-Marxist initiatives as put forward in the UN. This explains Obama’s sponsoring of the Global Poverty Act, which, based on the UN’s Millennium Declaration, forces the US to commit .7% of its GNP toward foreign aid. (The US, alone among the world’s nations, may already come close to this through private charity, a phenomenon ignored by the UN’s radicals.) This will likely do for the world’s poor what Johnson’s War on Poverty did for the poor of the US — enslave them to the dole, enrich the bureaucrats who administer the programs, and waste an unimaginable amount of money, making the problem worse while driving taxation through the roof.
Where does this leave us? If all the facts cited here are accurate, here’s the complete picture:
Barack Obama was born of Communist activists, mentored by Communist writer and activist, spent his college days hanging around radical activists (this from Obama’s own book), worked as a radical community organizer learning the radical tactics of Alinsky, kept contact with radicals through the years, and today lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists, and has radicals working on for his campaign. Oh, and he believes opposition to the aims of radical activists will fail because the radicals embody the will of God.
I’m beginning to wonder whether simply pointing to the National Journal’s assessment of Obama’s voting record as the most liberal in the US Senate is strong enough. It appears to me that Mr. Obama embodies the fondest dreams of radical socialist organizers over the years — that someday, a candidate with enough broad, personal appeal would rise to lead the United States away from its defense of individual liberty, and into whole-hearted support of World Socialism. It’s even plausible — not proved here, certainly, but plausible — that Obama has trained his entire life for this role, and that he’s literally a plant from within the world of radical Marxism to help achieve their goal of world domination by removing the opposition of Marxism’s only effective enemy — the libertarian instincts of the United States.
A fairly thorough but concise history of Obama’s political synthesis can be found here.
Update: A companion piece showing Obama’s radical connections from his community organizer days until his run for the Senate can be found here.
« « Yes, the NIE Was Bogus | Main | William F. Buckley, RIP » »
39 Comments »
Comment by Jeff
Isn’t it oddly conveinient how he and Hillary seem to be running against each other… though we know at some point they’ll kiss and make up, in light of broader ideological concerns.
Comment by Phil
I seriously doubt that Ms. Clinton will make up with Obama. Though they’re ideological twins, his theft of the Democratic nomination that was hers by birthright will not be forgiven.
Thus do the demons, once sated on the blood of infidels, begin out of sheer hatred to devour each other…
Comment by Old Mike
You are both right. Publically they’ll kiss and make up at least till the election is over and privately she’ll hate him forever.
Phil, I think you described the Obama strategy in the second half of your piece.
Pick whatever dissatisfies you about the U.S. and Barack Obama is going to fix it about sums up his campaign so far.
Comment by Jeff
Point taken seriously,
You have a good point, considering the Clintons’ vengence. All they need and thrive on is a common enemy. In fact much of the left strategy depends on that, you know, to keep them all in locakstep.
However, as you say, some things may not be forgoten. So true. Clintons nust interpret this as a fight over the Party.
Comment by RM
Very intersting, and frankly leaves me feeling a bit uneasy.
You’ll probably get a visit tomorrow from someone in a tan trench coat who tells you that you’re digging too deep, and if you don’t quit, someone may get hurt.
In all seriousness, we look at all the signs that emerge as Sen. Obama is subjected to ever growing scrutiny, and it’s as if the mask is slipping a bit. I have been writing these “tells” off as simple pandering to his base or as inconsequential. I still don’t know what the truth is, but I sense there is more to be found where you have started.
He could be (1) a full bore liberal who is a patriotic American who simply believes in liberalism as the correct path (I have a few friends of this ilk and they are extremely intelligent folks, just wired different from you or I); (2) a socialist leaning individual who perhaps sees himslf as a liberal, who has to feign some of his seeming love for his country and hide some of his true feelings, and who feels he is booted and spurred to ride the American people down the correct path; or (3) a hard core socialist/communist whose every move is scripted and calculated.
I find (3) hard to believe. I took my son to a rally and this guy is GOOD. He did not blast George Bush or feed red meat to the crowd. He stated his policies and drew distinctions between his (seeming) views and those of his opponents. I left still disagreeing with his worldview, but thinking he’s one of the good guys who wants what is best for his country and basically believed what he was saying.
But I don’t know…This needs more work.
Comment by RM
Clarification: That HE basically believed what he was saying.
Glenn Beck is contemplating providing a comparison of views of key topics. McCain, Obama, Karl Marx, a few of the founding fathers. No spin, totally objective factual info, and let people draw their own conclusions. I think this is a terrific idea.
The next step: Taking the research you (and probably others) have started, digging deeper, and connecting the dots. The question: If it leads to substantive conclusions rather than speculation, how to get it before the American people for rational consumption without being absolutely slaughtered by the media and being cast in the role of a bigoted fearmonger.
Comment by Phil
You’ll probably get a visit tomorrow from someone in a tan trench coat who tells you that you’re digging too deep, and if you don’t quit, someone may get hurt.
Leftist radicals tend toward tattered military jackets.
He did not blast George Bush or feed red meat to the crowd.
The clear absence of venom has to be due to a carefully polished exercise. This man is a trained, leftist community organizer, remember? He’s studied Alinsky. He knows what to say and what not to say. Frankly, his command is masterful.
I believe the main reason he’s risen to the top of the Democratic heap is that he, alone among the Democrat contenders, has accurately read the nation’s fears; while the rest of the party is savaging Bush, he’s riding the fear of a national division. That’s his appeal to the center, and it’s ingenious. It’s a smoke screen, though; there’s no proposal, or even a hint of one, that has the slightest promise of healing the national divide. This is pure, political theater, of the sort that organizers play: tap the fear, direct it toward a project.
I hope this will get a lot more attention as the campaign season rolls on.
Comment by RM
It certainly needs attention. We’ll have to see what happens as the race unfolds, but he could be the Teflon candidate. Just today I heard some leftist journalists fretting about the “ugliness” of the upcoming campaign and complaining about the unfairness of Obama being connected in some manner to Farrakhan (even though Farrakhan is apparently the one who brought it up).
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Cynical Obama Demagogues NAFTA
[...] we learned yesterday, spent his early career learning how to leverage peoples’ fears to spur community action, a [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » New Tone = Old Populism
[...] Obama’s personal history and training in radical community organizing, using his oratorical skill to prey on peoples’ fears is what we should expect. I’m [...]
Comment by Lizardi
I’ve been watching Glen Beck and his coverage of Jonah Goldberg’s book Facist Liberalism and how Barack Obama will really damage our country?? The fact that America is becoming a Nanny state which is not good it is frightening. Obama lately seems to be having a Huge EGO problem like as soon as you talk to any of his advisors and a reporter meants him being a LIBERAL. They quickly divert by the saying of he is above them calling him a liberal and the reporters quickly mention his voting record and it seems to mae the advisors and Barack Obama upset. He doesn’t want the label at all. You are who you associate with no matter what? Your friends do influence your views. So to me if he wants to be President we should check out all his friends if they are questionable then it is fair game in my book. Hilary is right on and she is trying to tell her party that he is not vetted and ain’t that the truth. All people running for office should be VETTED. They have the highest office in the land.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Barack the Church Man
[...] I’ve written before that I felt there was reason to distrust Obama’s background; he’s spent too much time [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Racialist Marxism, and Fleeing From the Wright
[...] expressing harmonious views? Keep in mind, here, that my main objection to Obama is that a large number of radical Marxist influences in his formation suggest that he’s fundamentally a closet Marxist, [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » A Disturbing Comparison
[...] is a tough one. Alone, this comparison would bear no weight at all, but given what we already know about the Marxist influences in Obama’s background, the similarity of this approach is spooky and a bit alarming. Is there a connection? What is the [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Stephanopolous Defends
[...] The Real Obama peep through. And I think I’ve made it clear: I believe questions concerning Obama’s associations with the Wrights, Ayers, and Gamaliel Foundations of the world are the central questions we need to be asking about him, as they uncover the radical roots that [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Terrorists and the Democratic Primaries
[...] been on panels with the guy; that doesn’t mean all that much. It’s that Obama has spent his life immersed in politics like those Ayers voices, so Ayers’ politics don’t strike him as anything remarkable. “He uses violence to [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Hitchens Gets Obama… Then Loses Him
[...] Feel free to ask about his partner all you like, Chris… but he’s hiding something, and I think we know what it is. [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Communists and Obama
[...] flogged my research all over the Web concerning radicals in Obama’s upbringing and early training, I was gratified to see Nice Deb’s blog produce two very illuminating lists: one, listing [...]
Comment by Tom J
Yeah right. That ’supposedly Communist’ teacher at Mercer Island High school was later dean of the private school that Well-Known Communist Bill Gates (as in Microsoft) attended. Ya just never know what these wild, radical connections will lead to, do ya?
Can we all say ‘rubbish’ in chorus now?
Comment by Phil
Think you can explain to me how “Bill Gates attended the school where X taught” proves “X is not a radical?”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but that looks like an incorrect logical syllogism to me.
NOW we can all say “rubbish” in chorus, now that we know where the rubbish is.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » The Media Flood Begins
[...] just a man without substance, he’s a vicious, dishonest, gaffe-prone rookie, and he’s probably a closet Marxist to boot. A well-educated, well-informed public would reject him without a second [...]
Comment by Tom
This is the biggest load of neocon rubbish. UN Marxist initiatives? Give us a break. Ooh filthy communists, trying to feed the world’s poor. What?? The candidate of the center left party accepts the backing of the socialist international? Shocking! Reds under the Bed! So what? All the European center left parties are in the S.I. The Democrats obviously have the backing of everything to the left of them so it makes sense they accept their support. Bush accepted the support of hard right authoritarians and advocates of a theocracy did he not. Not to mention his close friendship with the Saudi Royals, including Osama’s relatives.
The Red you see is just in your eyes, my friend.
Comment by Phil
I had decided to ignore Tom’s comment when I saw this gem:
The Democrats obviously have the backing of everything to the left of them so it makes sense they accept their support.
Just curious, Tom: what would you be saying if John McCain accepted the endorsement AND supported the legislative initiatives of Aryan Nation?
Hypocrite.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Radical Obama: the Middle Years
[...] in February, I posted a collection of observations about Barack Obama’s upbringing that established a radical influence at every major stage of his early life, right up through his [...]
Comment by terry wilson
Obama is not alone. Even the venerable Rosa Parks got Red training at the Highland Folk School. For many years big money has aided and abetted communism here and elsewhere. Norman Dodd found this out in 1953 (see his Youtube testimony. So, with the increased socialism that is becoming the USA, Obama is only outstanding because of his potential position. Check the website of Socialist International and you’ll see familiar names that are friendly with that political point of view.
Comment by Tom
” The Democrats obviously have the backing of everything to the left of them so it makes sense they accept their ( the SI and the Socialist party’s support. ”
I didn’t mean that Obama should accept everyone’s support, i meant that the support of the SI and the S party are not a faction McCain will fight for. I can however, see why you would like to ignore my comment. After all, why confront the pay and equality gaps, the economy on the brink and the government-by-corporations when you can revel in cold war era anti left hysteria?
Comment by roy foster
Barack is dangerous. His words can never be believed. He is again a Manchurian Candidate. His childhood conditioning is who he is and to have found his way to this high point illustrates what we have created within the Chicago area… it’s all about evil. It has taken many years of spiritual decline to arrive at a time when America could be ruled by a fascist mind-set. I had predicted this in 1992.
Comment by Expound Truth
I applaud your research, and what you have written here. From what little research I have done on Odrama, I too, have found his radical leanings are quite extensive, and formed of the Alinsky model, combined with other forms of radical theory. Most seem to revolve around, and draw from, individuals, and passions of individual prosperity. The ability of agitating, creating excitment to such a point, that it becomes has a hypnotic spell. From that point any logic, or reason, is dispelled, by those hypnotized, has if only a momentary irritation to be brushed away. Of this thought process, that which is of reality, truth, becomes the radical view, and all attempts are made to negate its existance.
Some insight on this matter, and the forces of power seeking to implement its controls over our Republic can be gleaned from Madison’s 10th Federalist paper: http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/10.html “Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Comment by Rafael Brom
Communist Obama and his Pro-Abortion Socialist Gestapo will CHANGE USA into USSA – United Socialist States of America.
Pingback by Alinsky, Obama, and Racial Anger « I Took The Red Pill (and escaped the Matrix)
[...] Obama, and Racial Anger Plumb Bob Blog says: I’m particularly interested in Obama’s period of community activism in Chicago in the 1980s. [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Obama’s Stealth Socialism
[...] editorial then proceeds to cite some of the details I’ve noted here about Obama’s upbringing and early employment, only adding some details I did not know. Apparently Obama’s first [...]
Comment by monique
Hi my name is Monique and I’m 25 and black and I have a few things to say one, I detest Odrama for the fact that he is a liar, and that he is going to send our country to hell. And two he is only half black and to try to identify with me on that level is preposterous and third I’m a conservative christian and for him to fake being a christian is a insult, and it’s horrible that him would allow innocent children from failed abortions to die in a closet is the lowest thing that someone can do. And I would never vote for anyone who has Communist leanings for president. and I am in a biracial marriage so all this racist people that Odrama hangs around with worries me very much
Comment by j.r.k.
he is a communist and a hater. i heard one of his speeches on the radio in his 2004 campaign in which he said nearly all the things j. wright did with less bombast, but the subject matter was the same. i have searched for the transcripts and/or recordings of this speech on the internet and in the chicago newspapers and the material has been expunged. the tribune has the titles to these transcripts but the body of info has been deleted. america is in for a surprise.
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Radical Obama: Summary Judgment
[...] since the election is now upon us. However, the most-read posts I’ve written to date (here and here,) raise the possibility that Obama was a modern communist rather than a Democrat, and I [...]
Pingback by Plumb Bob Blog » Slander Gene?
[...] years in order deceive the public and win an election; readers who are new here should begin here, here, and here for background information. Be that as it may, however, one finds it hard to imagine that [...]
Comment by Ed
what a bunch of horse poo poo. now that we can see how hard he is working to help the American people, aren’t you all a bit embarrassed? doesn’t that realization make you understand how naive you are to believe this crap that some jerk threw up on the internet as if it were fact? oi vey. people are so ignorant.
Comment by Phil
Embarrassed?
In a mere 100 days, he’s nationalized the investment industry, portions of the insurance and auto industries, is making moves to nationalize the banking industry, and promises to nationalize the medical care industry as well. He’s increased the size of the national government by a factor of nearly 2 and promises more, he’s attempted to obliterate private charity in favor of government charity, he’s created government-sponsored work corps reminiscent of Young Socialists, he’s appointed radicals to nearly every important position in the cabinet, he’s initiated a flood of pro-abortion executive orders and favors legislation that forces doctors to perform abortions against their consciences. He’s restructured GM to steal the company from its bondholders and handed it over to the unions. Oh, and he’s bowed and scraped before every world dictator he can visit, while dismissing America’s long-time allies.
If by some accident Nikita Khrushchev had become President instead, what would he have done differently?
I’m more convinced than ever that my analysis in this piece was spot on.
Comment by Nghia
Plumb Bob is right. This country USA is for the people and by the people, but Obama want to weaken the power of the people power, gun act, so then the Obama government is more stronger ……..
Killing the innocent, child abortion. I can not believe it . If he is good he should use those money needed to explore in teaching everyone from anti-prenant which mean there is more works/teachers, I understand as all of us to school from grade 6th we did learn somehow for anti-prenant, but acting again for all over is ok …
Comment by John Doe
Dumb Bob blog.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
