Obama is a Marxist with Proof


Upon listening to some of the feedback from our political posts about President Barack Obama being a Marxist, I have decided to write a series of articles which will show and prove once and for all that Obama is definitely a Marxist. For those of you who do not know, the term “Marxist” comes from the author of the “Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx. Communism and Socialism can trace their beginnings and beliefs back to Karl Marx and his Communist Manifesto book. Be sure to check out additional links in this series at the end of this article.

I truly believe Obama’s ultimate goal is to destroy the American capitalist system and implement a socialist system in it’s place.

Barack Obama’s childhood mentor was one Frank Marshall Davis, a known member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Barack wrote in his book, “Dreams From My Father”, about a poet named Frank, who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self” giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

Who was Richard Wright?

Richard Wright was an author and a communist. Wright edited Left Front, a magazine that the Communists later shut down despite his repeated protests. While Wright was at first pleased by positive relations with white Communists in Chicago, he was later humiliated in New York City by some who rescinded an offer to find housing for Wright because of his race. To make matters worse, some black Communists denounced the articulate, polished Wright as a bourgeois intellectual, assuming he was well educated and overly assimilated into white society. However, he was largely autodidactic after having been forced to end his public education after the completion of grammar school. Wright’s insistence that young communist writers be given space to cultivate their talents and his working relationship with a black nationalist communist led to a public falling out with the party and the leading African-American communist Buddy Nealson. In 1937, Richard Wright moved to New York, where he forged new ties with Communist Party members there after getting established.

Who was Langston Hughes?

Langston Hughes was a poet and Communist, even though later in life he distanced himself from Communism. In 1932, Hughes became part of a group of blacks who went to the Soviet Union to make a film depicting the plight of African Americans in the United States. The film was never made, but Hughes was given the opportunity to travel extensively through the Soviet Union and to the Soviet-controlled regions in Central Asia, the latter parts usually closed to Westerners. Hughes’ poetry was frequently published in the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) newspaper and he was involved in initiatives supported by Communist organizations, such as the drive to free the Scottsboro Boys. Partly as a show of support for the Republican faction during the Spanish Civil War, in 1937 Hughes traveled to Spain as a correspondent for the Baltimore Afro-American and other various African-American newspapers. Hughes was also involved in other Communist-led organizations like the John Reed Clubs and the League of Struggle for Negro Rights.  He was more of a sympathizer than an active participant. He signed a statement in 1938 supporting Joseph Stalin’s purges and joined the American Peace Mobilization in 1940 working to keep the U.S. from participating in World War II.

Who is Frank?

This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II—even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership.” Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.

Barack Obama’s mentor, whom he spoke about frequently in his books, is definitely Frank Marshall Davis. Frank is definitely a communist. Frank influenced Barack more-so than anyone else in his political life. Frank’s two contemporaries, Richard Wright and Langston Hughes, definitely had communist leanings.

Is it really all that difficult to see Barack Obama’s true colors and beliefs?

We will provide further proof in upcoming articles over the next several days…stay tuned.

To view prior posts check out the following links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11

~Boo~

 

46 Responses to “Obama is a Marxist with Proof”

  1. Kaleokualoha says:

    No amount of attempted guilt-by-association can prove that he is a Marxist. Has Obama EVER advocated the replacement of capitalism with collectivism?

    Frank Marshall Davis rejected collectivism. He was a capitalist. He owned two paper companies, and sold advertising specialties, in Hawaii. He joined the CPUSA during WWII, just as the United States joined the Soviet Union during WWII, not because they shared the delusion of a communist utopia. Each was a marriage of convenience. He joined because membership had its privileges, such as professional and social opportunities. He considered membership in the CPUSA as a “vehicle and tool” because, according to “The New Red Negro” (cited by AIM’s Cliff Kincaid as a source):

    “ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique.”

    Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only significant institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support.

    Further, as The New Red Negro makes clear, there was no monolithic Stalinist doctrine within the CPUSA: “This is not to say that the impact of the Communist Left on African-American writers in the 1930′s and 1940′s flowed from absolute unity of ideology and practical application of that ideology. As mentioned before, the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies. This conflicts appeared within top leadership, where Earl Browder and William Z. Foster and their supporters were frequently at odds. They also surfaced in the regional leadership of important districts that were occasionally, and in the case of southern California frequently, in opposition to the national leadership. Finally, at the rank-and-file level, when leadership debates broke out into the open (as they did in 1929, 1956-1946, and 1956), the were replayed in almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of “unorthodox” political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist.”

    “A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930′s until at least the early 1950′s. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work.”

    The bottom line is that communist ties were common for African-American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.

    For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC’s capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members. According to CNBC’s “The People’s Republic of Profit,” the PRC now has over 100 billionaires – second only to the United States. Some Communist Party members are VERY successful capitalists!

    Even today people join some organizations, such as churches and the YMCA, without internalizing their core values because membership has its advantages. I believe everyone will agree that many so-called “Christians” have not internalized Christian values. Some could argue that Stalinism perverted the core values of Marxism, just as the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests perverted the core values of Christianity.

  2. Boo says:

    Kale,

    Keep checking back often for more proof that Obama is indeed a socialist/communist as we will keep adding more to this topic in the future. Our first story has only scratched the proverbial surface. Sure, associations alone do not confirm what he truly believes, however his actions “say it all”.

    No one ever said communists did not like to earn money as well. You could be a communist and still try to acquire as much wealth as possible. Socialists/communists believe in collectivism except when it comes to them sharing the fruits of their labor. They believe businessmen are the root of the evil in society and that they are exploiting everyone for their benefit.

    Since you claim the above mentioned mentors are not communists, I say bullshit. Would you associate with someone or a group with such radical views, only for the associations you could acquire? I know my conscience would not allow me to do so. If you owned a company that produced military technology that could be used against your own country, would you sell the technology to another hostile country for the sake of bettering yourself with more profits? I surely hope not.

    I could continue, but I will save more for the upcoming blogs.

    Thanks for the comment, even though it is misguided, we do appreciate the varying viewpoints.

    ~Boo~

  3. Kaleokualoha says:

    “You could be a communist and still try to acquire as much wealth as possible” is true, but acquiring wealth does not mean capitalism. You can acquire wealth through means other than the use of capital.

    “Would you associate with someone or a group with such radical views, only for the associations you could acquire? I know my conscience would not allow me to do so.” Of course! As a scholar and retired Air Force Intelligence Officer, I associate with as wide a range of people as possible! This has nothing to do with selling technology.

    Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a “socialist,” but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which means the replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is “WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?”

    Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ayn Rand’s fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.

    Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.

    The bottom line is simple. If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be “socialism,” then the United States and ALL other economies are “socialist.” The debate is over, because by that definition we have been “socialist” since the 18th century. If you only consider complete collectivism to be “socialism,” according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually “socialist.” The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea. If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist, or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as “socialism,” or you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite “trigger point” qualifies as “socialism,”, and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The “trigger point” explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.

    Marxist “socialism,” in contrast to European “democratic socialism,” requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That is the death of private enterprise. We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.

    “Direction” is one thing. “Goal” is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In history, socialism/communism was reversed and capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.

    I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.

  4. We’ve got the proof you are looking for: http://www.commieblaster.com

  5. [...] You can read our first installment of this series by clicking Obama the Marxist Part 1. [...]

  6. Boo says:

    Kale,

    With you being a “scholar”, I think that you are fully aware of what I mean when I call Barack Obama a communist, socialist, marxist or collectivist.

    Most people understand the literal definitions of those words above and are also aware that America will probably never achieve a society that is 100% any of those “ists”. The American people would never stand for it and you would have a Civil War on your hands which would make the first one look like a small skirmish.

    My major complaint with Obama is that I believe he wants to push America further to the economic left by implementing more policies that are closer to a socialist society.

    To my knowledge no country has ever tried to implement a 100% capitalist society. No one knows if Ayn Rand’s brilliant ideologies would work or not as they have never been tried. The same can’t be said about Communism (see the old Soviet Union).

    Maybe you feel that you do not pay enough in taxes to the various entities, but most people I know believe they pay too much in taxes. When you figure in federal, state, local, sales, property, school, and all the other taxes, the typical citizen pays entirely too much of their hard earned money to these taxes.

    The further away from capitalism that Obama pushes the American system, the more you and I will have to pay. Do you not agree with this? Being a “scholar”, surely you realize this. Your empirical evidence came directly from the horse’s mouth, when he said he wants to “spread the wealth” and also by the policies and amount of spending he has done thus far. According to the latest CBO report, Obama’s policies will add nearly 10 trillion dollars to the debt. Do you feel this is a sustainable amount of spending? Do you believe this will bring on major inflation and a devaluing of the dollar? What will happen if the Chinese stop purchasing our treasury notes? What happens then? Politicians from both parties have spent too much money. This is not a republican or democrat issue as both are responsible for our current state.

    We should be moving toward a more capitalist system instead of away from it, which is precisely what Barack is doing and the reason I call him a Marxist.

    Stop being cute with words and try to understand my viewpoints. You may become “enlightened”.

    ~Boo~

  7. [...] is the third part of our series, “Obama is a Marxist with Proof.” In our first installment we showed you the connections between Frank Marshall Davis, Richard Wright and Langston Hughes with [...]

  8. Kaleokualoha says:

    Unfortunately, the recent behavior of Wall Street is the result of inadequate regulation. More regulation is required, likely to the dismay of free-market advocates. Such regulation invariably pushes our spot on the mixed economy spectrum to the left.

  9. Boo says:

    More regulation does nothing but hurt the free market. The way to fix the issues isn’t with more regulation, but with less. The collectivists democrats kept pushing for more minority/poor people home ownership at any cost. They forced the hands of the lenders to come up with creative financing schemes so that everyone with a heartbeat could be approved for a home loan, regardless if they could afford the payments or not. This is fact and irrefutable. This has lead to Chris Dodd being run out of the Senate and if Barney “Fag” Frank wasn’t in a leftist district, he would be run out of DC as well.

    The further the pendulum swings to the left, the worse it is for everybody. You need to give businessmen incentives to take chances and hopefully get the job market going again. The reason the unemployment hasn’t hardly moved is due to the uncertainty of what kind of Marxists policies this administration is going to spring on them.

    It’s hard enough to start a business and succeed, much less having to worry about all the political crap that’s going to be thrust upon you.

    You are a scholar, you should know how the economy works. I refuse to believe otherwise.

  10. [...] view our other articles proving Obama to be a socialists please check out the following links: Part 1, Part 2, and Part [...]

  11. Kaleokualoha says:

    Although the banking bailout may be linked to easy homeowner credit, the previous Wall Street bailout (AIG, etc) had nothing to do with easy mortgage terms. The derivative scandal came from unregulated trading of financial instruments.

  12. Boo says:

    It was all the result of extending credit to unworthy customers along with the ridiculous amount of leverage ratios that the investment banks were allowed to use. It’s insane to allow a bank to leverage at a ratio of 30-1 or even 100-1 as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were.

    It works wonderfully during boom times, but it bites your ass in downturns. There were several things that caused our current crisis and no amount of throwing money at it as the current administration is doing will improve things very much.

    Just look at the unemployment rate, still around 10%. Money isn’t the fix for everything and the sooner all politicians realize this the better.

  13. Kaleokualoha says:

    “It’s insane to allow a bank to leverage at a ratio of 30-1 or even 100-1 as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were.”

    Agreed. But how do you control such insanity except with greater regulation?

  14. Boo says:

    They should revert back to the way things were previously. Banks haven’t always been classified they way they are now and thus weren’t able to leverage so heavily.

    I’m not against reasonable regulations, like the leverage being lowered to a more sensible level, but I am completely against over-regulation which is what typically happens within the political realm.

  15. [...] view our other articles proving Obama to be a socialists please check out the following links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part [...]

  16. [...] view our other articles proving Obama to be a socialists please check out the following links: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part [...]

  17. Myles Gungor says:

    Hi webmaster – This is by far the best looking site I’ve seen. It was completely easy to navigate and it was easy to look for the information I needed. Fantastic layout and great content! Every site should have that. Awesome job

  18. Edmonton mindy says:

    Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

  19. Gay Cichlids says:

    I’m so glad I randomly found your blog. It has great information.

  20. Hyon Holcombe says:

    Just wanted to say you have a great site and thanks for posting!

  21. Grant Davis says:

    Cheers lots, I’ve found this info very good!

  22. Grant Davis says:

    Thanks dude, I never knew that, appreciated.

  23. Kyle String says:

    Hello Great Job. I think you made some great points in your points and I am goign to do some follow up research topic related and learn more.

  24. educational grants says:

    this post is very usefull thx!

  25. Paris France Vacation Packages says:

    or any other religion he is God.So God should not be erased from the equation.

  26. Gilberto Pinard says:

    Thank you making the effort to go over this, Personally i think strongly regarding it and love learning read more about this topic. When possible, while you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with increased information? It is extremely helpful to do.

  27. Myles Huski says:

    Are you sure of that ?

  28. Brendan Derosby says:

    Finally a smart blogger…I love how you’re thinking and writing!

  29. Cordelia Zuehlsdorff says:

    I’ve been reading the information on your site for quite some time now, just wanted to do a quick post and say thank you for all of the useful information you have been providing your readers all this time.

  30. medieval clothes says:

    insightful post

  31. Tristan Kirckof says:

    Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you’re an ~censored~. :)

  32. best pda phones says:

    I’ve been looking searching around for this type of information. Will you post some more in future? I’ll be grateful if you will.

  33. Bob Hewgley says:

    Amazing, this topic is sweet. Ithink I have skimmed over this topic a bunch times. You should visit my site. I run a love poetry check it out and let me know what you think.

  34. Billie Spoth says:

    Hello,this is Billie Spoth,just discovered your Post on google and i must say this blog is great.may I quote some of the writing found in the weblog to my local friends?i am not sure and what you think?in either case,Thank you!

  35. Sekisui House says:

    Great article, i hope can know much information About it.

  36. Hello,I find that your web site is quite informative and useful and we were curious if there is really a possibility of obtaining More writing like this on your web site. If you willing to help us out, we will be willing to compensate you… Sincerely, Matilda Gassoway

  37. sts says:

    I want to start blogging too, what do you think, which blog cms is good for beginner?

  38. Aurora Malter says:

    interesting blog. It would be great if you can provide more details about it. Thanks you

  39. Orval Augeri says:

    Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!

  40. Kellie Caplette says:

    you are professional.

  41. [...] view prior posts check out the following links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part [...]

  42. [...] view prior posts check out the following links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part [...]

  43. [...] view prior posts check out the following links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part [...]

  44. [...] view prior posts check out the following links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part [...]

  45. [...] view prior posts check out the following links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part [...]

  46. [...] view prior posts check out the following links: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9 Part 10 Part [...]







panties.com Sexy Lingerie


Click Here to Earn Massive Wealth Online!