Comrade Obama….A Love Affair with Communism

Sam Webb, leader of the Communist Party U.S.A.  recently gave a major speech focused on President Obama’s Communist ways  titled “Off and running: Opportunity of a lifetime.”

cpusaCPUSA leader Sam Webb alleges that the Obama administration is, among other things, considering turning education, childcare, and health care into “no profit zones;” rerouting investment capital from military infrastructure to “green economy” projects and public infrastructure; and waging what he termed as a “full scale” assault on global warming.

At a recent speech in Ohio for People’s Weekly World Communist newspaper, Webb said “we now have not simply a friend, but a people’s advocate in the Whitehouse .  

An era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream. Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House,” Webb proclaimed.

MUST READ:

Sam Webb (leader of Communist Party USA) intro to “The Obama”

The first time I heard of BarackDuring the period of roughly February 1992 to mid-1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist, while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause – a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.’s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge – one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

“You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven’t you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice president and you didn’t do it.”

The general response went something along the lines that you don’t vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don’t vote for vice president, but the president and vice president as a ticket.

“Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon.”

The consensus we expressed was that we didn’t think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she, black or not.

“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”

“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your president.”

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly – as though all were foregone conclusions. “It’s all been thought out. His father is not an American black, so he won’t have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He’s gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America.”

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: They would give us a black president and he’d be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the Legislature. “Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet.”

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn’t understand what the point was and don’t recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

Since I had dabbled in languages, I knew a smattering of Arabic. I made a comment: “If I remember correctly, ‘Barack’ comes from the Arabic word for ‘Blessing.’ That seems to be an odd name for an American.” She replied quickly, “Yes. It is ‘African,'” she insisted, “and he will be a blessing for world Communism. We will regain our strength and become the number one power in the world.”

She continued with something to the effect that America was at the same time the great hope and the great obstacle for Communism. America would have to be converted to Communism, and Barack was going to pave the way.

So, what does this conversation from 1992 prove?

Well, it’s definitely anecdotal. It doesn’t prove that Obama has had Soviet Communist training nor that he was groomed to be the first black American president, but it does show one thing that I think is very important.

It shows that Soviet Russian Communists knew of Barack from a very early date.  It also shows that they truly believed among themselves that he was raised and groomed Communist to pave the way for their future. This report on Barack came personally to me from one of them long before America knew he existed.

Although I had never before heard of him, at the time of this conversation Obama was 30-plus years old and was obviously tested enough that he was their anticipated rising star.

frank-marshall-davisEnter Obama Friend & Mentor……Frank Marshall Davis 

Decades ago, the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)  had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union,” Kincaid wrote.

He noted even Obama describes “Frank” has having “some modest notoriety once.”

Kincaid notes that a history professor in Houston reported that Davis “befriended” a family whose son was named Barack Obama, “who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”

“It was in Chicago that Obama became a ‘community organizer’ and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America…,” Kincaid wrote. “The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization.”

He also reported Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, confirmed that Davis is the “Frank” in Obama’s book.

And this about Obama from Vladmir Putin……(happy Obama isn’t going forward with u.s. missile defense systems and special note….mention of the WTO, aka, New World Order!)

 

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. Wow – again amazing. Bamboozled !

  2. soviets knew of obama in 1992….”“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

  3. Wasn’t it shortly after the airing of this program that America was plunged into a deep economic crisis? The coincidence was just too obvious. Hannity was starting to wake up some Americans and then we saw what happened to Joe the Plumber.

  4. One of these days people are going to wake up to this guy and how the Obots, the media and now the entire country have been bamboozled. Pumas knew from Day 1 that this guy wasn’t a hypocrite and a fraud. Fuckers and fuck Obama.

  5. To read a detailed account of communist saturation into america visit my blog. I think I have some great ideas of how conservatives hurt their own cause, and that this is how good people are deceived by the communist “masterful deception”

    stricklandhappenings.blogspot.com

  6. Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? Do you think she would approve of your alignment with wingnut Cliff Kincaid from “Accuracy In Media” in his disinformation regarding Frank Marshall Davis?

  7. Are you a Hillary Clinton supporter? What’s incorrect in this story? We always consider the source and these days honesty is coming from the strangest places.

  8. Obama wasn’t mentored by Frank Marshall Davis. This is disinformation, which ignores the fact that as an older teen, Obama didn’t even visit Davis for three years. Obama’s book indicates Davis was a family friend whom he only visited occasionally. The Obama campaign specifically rejected the claim of mentorship in their rebuttal to the Corsi book.

    Dictionary.com defines “mentor” as a “a wise and trusted counselor or teacher.” The fact that Obama did not visit Davis during his high-school years, when he was making critical decisions regarding his future, clearly indicates that he did not regard Davis as his mentor. Davis’s earlier identity advice to young teenage Obama was obviously enough.

    A disinformation campaign, spearheaded by Cliff Kincaid’s “Accuracy In Media” (AIM), exaggerates Davis’s radical influence on teenage Obama. The Obama campaign specifically refuted this fraudulent meme, which deliberately misrepresents the relationship as “almost like a son.” A painstakingly documented analysis of this disinformation campaign is posted as “specific misrepresentation” at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxdvX .

  9. Oh so you’re an Obot. Obama is nothing but a liar and a hypocrite and I don’t trust anything that comes out his mouth of that of his website. Fuck Obama.

  10. Does this also mean that you will not trust the United States Government whie he is in office?

  11. You’ve got to be kidding? Trust the government? Hell no. Look what they are doing right now. Obama and his cabinet are conspiring to bail out the banks share holders and leave the tax payers footing the bill. Obama cannot be trusted. He could never be trusted. How can anyone still support him after his FISA reversal? He cares about no one but himself. He’s not qualified to be president and it is painfully obvious. He did not win the nomination. He stole it. If Hillary were are president we would not be in this situation right now.

  12. The $800B bailout was a Bush administration initiative in 2008. Did you trust the United States Government during the Bush administration?

  13. never trusted the government, now its just gone fascist 100%

  14. I love my country. I fear my government.

  15. I Love My Country (UK!),
    and the UK Government is my (miscreant) civil servant,
    just as the US government is your (miscreant) civil servant . . . !

    Soon to be taught a lesson,
    but I think they all have severe learning difficulties,
    possibly as a side effect of too many prescribed psychia-trick drugs. . .

  16. Just as Chicken Little started a “sky is falling” hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a “Socialist Obama” hysteria based on healthcare reform and government bailouts of American industry. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According to dictionary.com, socialism is “a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.”

    Please note that it is the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Marxist socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership.

    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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: