Obama’s Team ‘Socialists with Communist Backgrounds’

Posted on September 11, 2009. Filed under: Obama, Politics, Socialism/Communism |

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a  duck, and looks like a duck…

What do we have to do to prove to folks that Obama is pushing a socialist agenda??? He does everything to turn us into a socialist country and they still won’t believe it. I just don’t get it!! I’m so frustrated!!!!

Bottom line: In my opinion Obama is a racist, socialist, narcissistic liar, thug and crook who will not release any of his records so that we can see who he really is. We can’t even get the basics out of him – a simple birth certificate!!  He says what the liberal nutjobs want to hear and then he does whatever he wants. He is a radical who is surrounded by radicals and he is ruining us while we sit idly by and watch! I don’t want to watch! I want to do something about it. We have to take this country back!!!

Obama’s team ‘socialists with communist backgrounds’

Prof with ties to radical White House associates says president understands socialism

Posted: September 10, 2009

By Aaron Klein

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

NEW YORK – Many of the people working with President Obama are Marxists or socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party, according to a socialist Columbia University professor with strong ties to Obama’s radical associates, including Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers.

“What makes Obama different is that he has also been a community organizer. He has read left literature, including my works, and he understands what socialism is,” wrote Manning Marable, professor and founding director of the Institute for Research in African American Studies at Columbia University.

“A lot of the people working with him are, indeed, socialists with backgrounds in the Communist Party or as independent Marxists,” Marable wrote in a December 2008 piece published in the Socialist Review.

In the article, Marable contends “Obama is not a Marxist or a socialist – he is a progressive liberal.” “Obama represents a generation of what might be called post-racial black politicians – by which I mean they espouse a politics that minimizes matters of race. They do not like to talk about race and subsume it under the rubric of poverty and class.”

Speaking to WND today, Marable refused to identify the individuals working with Obama he wrote were socialists with Communist Party backgrounds.

He said, however, those individuals strongly believe Obama would change the “tenor of politics within the Democratic party.”

“I think the point I was making is that there are a number of people with left histories who were early participants in Obama’s mobilization. They have a strong belief in Obama as a candidate with the possibility of changing the tenor of politics within the Democratic Party,” he told WND.

Nine months after Marable’s remarks on communists working with Obama, the president’s controversial environmental adviser, Van Jones, resigned amid reports Jones was an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.

Marable has been teaching at Columbia since 1993, 10 years after Obama graduated from the college.

Marable was not commenting as an outside observer. The Columbia professor is intimately connected to many of Obama’s radical associates and even was a founding member of the Socialist New Party. WND previously reported newspaper evidence showing Obama was a member of the party.

The New Party sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda – a history that might grant substance to Marable’s comments to WND today about hopes Obama will change the “tenor” of the Democratic party.

WND last month interviewed a founder of the New Party, Marxist activist Carl Davidson, who recalled Obama’s participation with his group.

In 2007, Marable was elected chair of Movement for a Democratic Society, or MDS, an arm of the radical Students for a Democratic Society from which the Weatherman terrorist organization later splintered.

Some Weathermen terrorists, including Ayers, participate in Marable’s MDS. In November 2007, for example, WND found that Ayers participated in an MDS panel entitled, “Resisting endless war.”

The New Zeal blog, meanwhile, found that Marable held leadership roles in the Communist Party offshoot, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

Also, Marable in 1998 helped found the Black Radical Congress, where he worked with controversial race scholar Cornel West, an Obama friend who introduced the politician at his first campaign stop in Harlem. WND disclosed that during that 2007 introduction, West first railed on stage against the “racist” U.S. criminal justice system of the “American empire.”

West, currently a professor at Princeton University, served as an adviser on Louis Farrakhan’s Million Man March and is a personal friend of the Nation of Islam leader. West authored two books on race with Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr, who was at the center of a recent controversy in which Obama remarked on Gates’ being handcuffed by police outside his home after a report of a burglary.

Marable, in the mean time, has been a regular speaker at an annual socialist conference, the Socialist Scholars Conference, which is usually held at Cooper Union in New York. It has been reported that in the early 1980s, Obama attended socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn.

LINK: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109486

Advertisements

Make a Comment

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

11 Responses to “Obama’s Team ‘Socialists with Communist Backgrounds’”

RSS Feed for Don’t Get Me Started… Comments RSS Feed

You say: “Bottom line: In my opinion Obama is a racist, socialist, narcissistic liar, thug and crook”

I have a different suggestion. Why don’t we quit name calling and just talk about the issues. For every nasty thing you say about Obama I could come up with something equally nasty to say about someone on the right. I am going to refrain from doing that because frankly it does nothing but get us both angry – and we never talk about the real issues.

So – how about we start over and talk about Obama’s policies. What specifically do you not like?

— hippieprof

I don’t like the fact that Obama’s policies are being forced on us without due diligence. The Stimulus Package, for example. Who actually read the whole thing?

The American people weren’t given a say in the matter, except through their representatives, who chose not to listen.

5000 bankers got 1M each of stimulus money for their bonuses? What kind of policy is that?????

Mairez,

See – when we don’t do name calling you will find we agree on some things.

I don’t like the banker bonuses any better than you do – but as I understand it Obama did try to put a stop to those but was advised that he legally couldn’t because they were based on pre-existing contracts. Whoever wrote those contracts is at fault – but that occurred well before Obamas’ watch.

I don’t like the debt and really don’t like the stimulus either – but I tend to think it was a necessity. I believe we would be in far worse economic shape now if we not had the stimulus.

I know what you mean about reps not listening too. Part of the reason I voted for Obama is that I did want to see a massive overhaul of how health insurance is handled – and I actually don’t think he is listening enough to people like me who elected him to do just that.

I also understand the frustration of being in the party out of power. I felt that way for eight years. But, I survived and the country survived – and it will survive Obama’s tenure as well. Honestly, he isn’t a terrible evil person – he is a decent person trying to do what he thinks is right. You may disagree with his ideas – but I think he is motivated to do the right thing, whatever that might be.

— hippieprof

Yes, name-calling never enhances honest debate.

I have no names for Obama. I wonder if he isn’t just a puppet. He may be a racist, I tend to think he sympathizes with black America. His actions are certainly leaning toward socialism.

And, his methods are radical. He has nominated (and appointed) people for high office who have been proven to be tax cheats, and worse. The Senate doesn’t get to vet the “czars.”

He was a big supporter of Acorn. And now, when two kids manage to infiltrate and get the goods on two different Acorn offices, we get a limited look at Acorn’s tactics and the damage they can do to America. And yet, Acorn (and it’s subsidiaries) is slated to receive billions.

His Attorney General is responsible for the dropping of the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers [are any of those guys from Acorn?]

It seems to me that when the American people were forced to bail out the banks, all bets should have been off. Didn’t Congress seek to impose a burdensome tax on such bonuses?

If I complain to my representatives about the corruption of the rule of law, I receive no reply.

These are some of my issues that have come forth since the new administration came into power. That’s a lot of water under the bridge in so short a time.

Mairez,

A lot of my response to Bridget is relevant here too so I will keep this short.

Has Obama done some questionable things? Has he made some questionable appointments? Yes – and some of them probably bother me as almost as much as they bother you. But – I guess I don’t think this is any different from what we see with any politician. Bush made a lot of questionable appointments too, in my opinion (for example, Harriet Miers). This is not to justify the actions of either Obama or Bush – but simply to to note that one side is no better than the other.

Does Obama have a radical agenda? To me, no. He is a liberal Democrat, and thus favors a larger government than you feel comfortable with – but he is most certainly not a socialist.

— hippieprof

Hippieprof,
Harriet Miers was yet another, all-too-frequent example of cronyism. Fortunately for the American people, Supreme Court justices are required to be confirmed.

I am seeing the Obama Administration as a reincarnation of the Nixon Administration. Not many people had paid attention to Nixon and his cronies until the Watergate story broke. Following that, we saw the names of his cabinet and staff being bandied about.

The Watergate scandal was good for America because it made a lot of people much more aware of abuse of power and government run amok.

Here is a timeline of the events. I don’t know if it’s written by liberals, but, facts are facts. Wow, the stuff I’ve either forgotten or never knew about:
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=nixon_and_watergate_tmln

My point is that it doesn’t do any good to say “all politicians lie (or shade the truth).” That is not a valid argument here. Obama said that it wasn’t going to be “politics as usual” and he promised us “transparency in government.” Both of those statements were 100% inaccurate.

We’ve been ripped off and we don’t even know where the money is going. And, it’s an ongoing process.

Obama favors a many-times-larger govt. than I feel comfortable with. [Politics on Steroids, if you will] And, it isn’t govt. by the people. That’s for damn sure!

Fortunately, the people are finally waking up. And, most fortunately, we have resources like Goggle to aid our inquiries.

-mairez

Mariez….

Thank you bringing up Nixon and Watergate. Although I was young, I remember it well. I grew up in a very conservative family and watched the hearings with my mother – as she swore and threw things at the TV in protest of what the awful Democrats were doing to her president. I cried alongside her when Nixon resigned. It always feels different to the on the attacker side than it does to be on the atackee side – even though the “facts” were the same.

I myself would have eventually brought up Nixon – if only to note that Obama didn’t invest the czar system (neither did Nixon, for that matter).

You seem to be implying that just as Nixon went down for Watergate, Obama should go down because he has czars? (I may be reading too much into what you say here). Nixon went down for Watergate not because he had czars and advisers, but because
those people committed crimes on his behalf and with his prior knowledge. I don’t believe anyone is suggesting that Obama and his advisers have committed similar crimes. Perhaps you are suggesting that they might someday. If that is the case, we should perhaps refrain from accusations until it occurs.

You finish by saying: “Fortunately, the people are finally waking up. And, most fortunately, we have resources like Goggle to aid our inquiries. ”

I wish you wouldn’t say “the people” because that would suggest that I am not one of “the people” because I disagree with you. Some of the people apparently agree with you. Some of the people apparently agree with me. It is fine if you want to protest – more power to you – but don’t begin to suggest that you somehow represent the majority.

Thanks you for the discussion.

— hippieprof

Hippieprof, I find it amusing that after all the name calling your side did of Bush, you now want to put a stop to name-calling. Not only did y’all call him names – liar, ignorant, murderer, Hitler, fascist, etc, but you also made no bones about the fact that you wanted him to die. Your side actually wrote a play about his assasination. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. How typical of you libs!! When you spoke out against Bush, it was called patriotism, free speech, and passion, but when we speak out against Obama it’s called hate speech and name calling. Apparently, free speech is only for your side. I don’t consider what I did to be name calling. I truly do believe that he is all of those things and I have proof to back up my statements. However, even if I give you the proof (which happens to be here on my site), you will just say it’s not true. If I have proof someone is a liar and I call him a liar, then its just fact, not name-calling.
Anyway, there are numerous issues that I disagree with Obama on – healthcare, immigration, national security, bailouts (which I disagreed with Bush on also), too much gov’t intereference, the racial divide that he is making bigger, etc, and I truly think we will lose everything we love about this country if we allow him to continue with his radical agenda!

Bridget,

For what it is worth, I personally didn’t engage in name calling back when Bush was in office – and I would regularly call out colleagues who did. I didn’t think it was appropriate then and I don’t think it is now. I wasn’t blogging then – but I like to think I would have called for my side to tone down the rhetoric during the Bush years.

Does Obama lie? Maybe – but certainly no more so than any politician. All politicians have a tendency to “shade the truth” to their own advantage. I don’t like it – and I wish we would see less of it – but I do understand that politics works that way. I don’t want to get into a big “who was worse” argument because nobody will win that – but to be honest I felt that Bush lied to me on a number of occasions – WMDs in Iraq being the prime example.

I guess the name calling really bothers me these days because so much of it has racist overtones. Maybe it is my “lefty” streak – but I find overt racism to be particularly heinous. When I look at photos of the signs people were carrying in DC this weekend it feels like we have moved back to the days before civil rights – it really seems like a portion of society really wants to move back to the days of Jim Crow. You say you have fear about where Obama is taking the country. I honestly have fear that folks on the right really want to take us back to the “good old days” of segregation.

Personally, I think Obama is a decent person with real American values just like you and I have. He is indeed a liberal Democrat – and thus favors a larger governmental role than you are comfortable with – but he really isn’t some kind of evil totalitarian dictator-in-waiting.

Thank you for the conversation. I honestly believe that the only way we will get out of this mess is to talk to each other calmly rather than shout at each other. That way we can concentrate on issues and not personalities.

— hippieprof

Hippieprof,

Do you delight in creating argumentative situations?

I made no such implication. Please do not try to manipulate me that way. I did not say that because Obama has czars he should go down. All you have to do is read what I wrote. Not: “read into” what I wrote.

I am saying that if Obama is corrupt the way Nixon was, he certainly should go down, the way Nixon did, but much sooner.

btw, I was glad when Nixon resigned.
The pimps in the apartment next to mine were even gladder. They ran out into the parking lot and set off firecrackers. I don’t know why.

By “the people,” I meant in general. You don’t have to interpret that as a personal exclusion.

It may be that a substantial majority are beginning to agree with me. If the election were held today, I’d bet it would be a lot closer. Maybe next time, we’ll have a good candidate who really wants the job.

-mairez

Mariez….

Of course I delight in creating argumentative situations – I am a professor – that’s what we do….

😉

Seriously, though – I was aware that I might have been reading things into your comments and even noted that. It is hard to know what people mean these days.

I am glad to see you don’t think Obama is corrupt like Nixon was. If he were, I would be right alongside you calling for his ouster. What I don’t understand is people seem to be calling for that now. I see lots of people at tea parties carrying “impeach Obama” signs – and I guess I don’t know what they mean by that. Are they actually implying that he has committee some sort of crime – or is it just rhetoric?

The next election will certainly be interesting. I actually think Obama will have a more difficult time with reelection if health care reform fails. People on my side will be angry because he has let us down, and people on your side will attack him for his lack of leadership.

Thanks again for the conversation.

— hippieprof


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: