Obama and Marxism

In the past, I have compared the voting record of various political figures to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.  The reason this provides an excellent illustration is because Sanders openly admits that he is a socialist.

An article written by Bill Bennett cites an analysis performed by the National Journal.  It found that Barack Obama is to the left of Bernie Sanders:

As the magazine reported: “The ratings system — devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal — also assigns ‘composite’ scores, an average of the members’ issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama’s composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.), with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden (D., Del.), with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), with a 92.8."

I have also checked the ratings published by the American Conservative Union and Americans for Democratic Action based on their voting records.  On those scorecards, Obama and Sanders are virtually indistinguishable.

But one particular writer, Stanley Kurtz, has done a yeoman's job documenting Obama's flirtations with radicalism and Marxism based on the Senator's years in Chicago.  His work is well worth reading.  Consider some of the evidence:

1. The liberation theology espoused in Obama's church was based on the work of James H. Cone, whose radicalism, vehement criticisms of capitalism and espousal of socialism are documented here.

2. A magazine published by Obama's church, the Trumpet, reflects Jeremiah Wright's adoption of Cone's theology.  Obama appeared in the magazine numerous times, and worked in tandem with Wright on certain political matters.

3. Obama had significant relationships with a radical, anti-capitalist organization called ACORN which had demonstrated socialist leanings.

4. We cannot underestimate the significance of Obama's interactions with such preachers and organizations in Chicago, and how it all ties together.  These became part of his political base, but he also expected the church, for instance, to play an intensely political role:

So Obama’s political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama’s ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama’s religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism...

Obama’s long-held and decidedly audacious hope has been to spread Wright’s radical spirit by linking it to a viable, left-leaning political program, with Obama himself at the center. The revolutionizing power of a politically awakened black church is not some side issue, or merely a personal matter, but has been the signature theme of Obama’s grand political strategy.

The public discussion about Jeremiah Wright a couple of months ago was focused on the style and content in certain video sound bites.  But these did not adequately reflect the depth of the socialistic tendencies espoused in his theology, or Obama's acquiescence with it.

It is not proper to muse about the legitimacy of Obama's Christian conversion.  There is no way to know about that.  

But it is understandable why Rev. Wright would have felt betrayed when Obama disavowed him.  Obama was acutely aware of what the church was all about-- its intensely political nature, and its tendency toward Marxism-- and in fact, that is apparently what drew him there.  The church was a part of his overall political strategy-- when he was a "community organizer", and later when he became a politician. 

Comments

[Bubba]

It's amazing how Obama ran to the left during the primaries, only to brazenly move to the middle once the nomination was assured.

The only way to describe this is blatant pandering.

If Obama manges to fool enough people into electing his President, I don't think there is any question that he will magically revert to the philosophy he has shown for his entire previous political life-- outright socialism.

What a disaster he would be for our nation and our people!

And yet the worship and adulation continue virtually unchecked in the media.

[Roch101]

Wow! You just scared me into voting for McCain.

[Joe Guarino]

Bubba, there is a tendency for Obama, understandably, to speak in a manner now that projects himself as being moderate. You are right, however, that he did not feel the need to describe himself that way during the primary season.

The media depicts him as moderate also. But I agree with you-- he will do whatever he can to advance socialist policies if he is elected. He will not be a dictator, and he cannot impose it unilaterally-- but he will likely have a more heavily Democratic Congress working with him.

Let's hope the GOP retains the filibuster in the Senate if he is elected.

[Beau D. Jackson]

In the past, I have compared the voting record of various political figures to Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The reason this provides an excellent illustration is because Sanders openly admits that he is a socialist.

There should be no question in any one's mind that Obama is a socialist, and those of lesser incomes are cheering for him, certainly poor blacks, simply because they know if elected he will have deep pockets for more socialistic programs, benefical to the idlers. But also Obama presents himself as a "black" candidate when in reality he is bi-racial. Why would he not present himself as bi-racial as he himself stated "In case you haven't noticed I happen to be black." So this makes me wonder just what is the issue with the white side of his family! Many months ago he threw his white grandmother under the bus, but where is his white mother! Now if I were green with purple poke dots and my son was running for the highest position in the world, I'd be there on the stump supporting him all the way! I ask why isn't she! Also Obama has had wealth with some of the finest educational institutes afforded to him, where did all these financial resources come from! I find this guy to be a contradiction and I'm perplexed that those people who attend his rally's shaking thier hears in the afirmative don't get it! Beau

[Joe Guarino]

You are right, Beau. He did not have an underprivileged background as far as I can tell. You raise an interesting question about his mom. Is she still alive?

[Stormy]

I made this very case in another post a day or so ago that Obama is at heart a socialist and will take our country toward socialism. If you examine his recent idea of taxing the oil companies and distributing it as income to every family in the U.S., that is classic socialism. Sure companies are taxed so that revenue can be used for social programs, but this is the first time that one industry would be singled-out for taxation to be used as income distribution. Actually, oil companies make about 9% ROI, and there are companies with much higher returns, such as Warren Buffett's companies. Why not tax them as they have an ROI about three times that of the oil companies? Oil companies are easy targets to be made as evil for Obama and the Dems.

There are two new books out that reveal Obama for who he is. Obama Nation and The Case Against Obama. Everyone should read them before voting.

Roch, I am glad to see that you are finally coming around and will vote for McCain, even if we had to scare some sense into you.

[Fred Gregory]

Stormy,

I think Roch Smith Jr. made that comment with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I would hope otherwise but somehow am skeptical.

[Stormy]

Fred,

Yes, I do understand that, but I said what I said with tongue firmly planted in cheek, as well. I have no hopes of Roch ever seeing the light. He is a staunch liberal and will not change.

You are right, Beau. He did not have an underprivileged background as far as I can tell. You raise an interesting question about his mom. Is she still alive?

With a reasonabl;e deghree of certainy I believe she is, but in this regard you'll noticed he calls himself "black only" completely voiding himself from any white heritage. I really find that troubling. Where is the maternal side of his family. I'm sure the press is aware of this but you'll note they're totally silent. Imagine if McCain had a great great great great black grandmother, the press, N & R, would be all over it suggesting McCain was trying to hide his black heritage.

[Stormy]

I have remarked that Obama is a socialist, but more correctly, he is really moving past socialism. Marxist theory tell us that socialism is merely a transitional stage between capitalism and communism, and socialism is the intermediate system between capitalism and communism, when the government is in the process of changing the means of ownership from privatism, to collective ownership. This helps to describe and understand Obama.

Obama is doing an excellent job of hiding his true political philosophies, but if elected and working with a Democrat-controlled Congress, you will see the federal government start to move to take greater control over all aspects of our daily life. This new order would be represented by a new social contract where the federal government controls essential services, such as health care, and imposes an abusive tax on everyone that actually works and has an income to pay for it. No, this will not just be a tax on the wealthy. Everyone will pay according to their ability and receive according to their needs, with the federal government deciding what that means.

If I am scaring you Roch, then that is good.

[Joe Guarino]

Stormy, you are absolutely right in your discussions about oil companies, Windfall Profits taxes and redistributing the proceeds to individuals. And you are also right about Obama's ideology, and how it affects policy.

And Beau, the subject of this post may explain why he does not flaunt his caucasian side of the family. He had a vision of using the liberationist church, and thereby fulfilling a political vision. And he had to secure the support of the nation's black churches-- and black leaders-- during the primary season.

[Everest]

Yet another great thread Joe - I'll keep it short so that Roch's sensibilities don't become offended, and I don't clog up the thread..

It's important for more and more people to genuinely understand what these candidates stand for - not the rhetoric that comes from either side, but what their basic beliefs and principles are, how they would govern, and where that type of leadership will take us. Dialogues like this are leading that education, and I'm grateful to you for that....

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks, Everest. Many people have been caught up in the enthusiasm surrounding Obama's public performances. But the generalities and sentiments he shares, while well-delivered and inspiring, are ultimately a lot of fluff that conceals what he would really do-- and not do.

People need to understand what he is all about.

[Roch101]

"He is a staunch liberal and will not change."

I'm pragmatic: Government should work to solve problems and create a better place for its citizens to live in when it can, get out of the way when it should and respect the Constitution always.

[bubba]

"....and respect the Constitution always."

How does inventing "constitutional rights" fit into that definition?

[Roch101]

I don't know what you are talking about, Bubba. I've never said that I am in favor of inventing Constitutional rights.

[John The Catholic]

I believe an Obama administration will be the advent of a true nanny-state, cradle-to-grave "government for your own good". I heard a clip from Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco last night stating that in an effort to build more green-friendly housing, "Sometimes people need to be told what is in their best interest.It's called change." This should scare the hell out of everyone, because that is the mentality of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid mindset, and guess what, friends? We're looking at a Dem sweep this November with the White House, and both houses of Congress under the most far-left politicians ever.

I am no fan of George W. Bush. I believe he has made a hash of things and we'll be cleaning up after him for a long time. But Obama represents a 180 degree turn to the other side.

I have nothing personal against Barack Obama. I simply am scared to death by what he proposes.

[Stormy]

Roch,

I agree with you that liberals desire to take an active role in solving people's problems (all of their problems), and, in so doing, controlling their lives and life styles. They accomplish that through their taxation policy. This is where a liberal and conservative differ. Conservatives believe that people should be responsible for solving their own problems, with government playing a secondary role, and consequently, not controlling their lives. We have seen many cases where people have grown to rely on the government to solve their problems, and thus be very disappointed when it did or could not.

But, this is exactly what Obama wants to do; control people's lives and life styles, making them dependent upon the government and use tax policy to pay for it all.

Obama is a classic left-wing liberal in that regard. If that is what people want, then they should vote for him. If it is not, then they shouldn't. I just do not remember the last time that the American people knowingly elected a left-wing liberal. Maybe, FDR?

[Joe Guarino]

John, I agree for the most part. When folks have compared Obama to Jimmy Carter, I think it is most likely with regard to a blithe acceptance of a downsized, impotent United States. We should aspire to national greatness, not second-rate status. We should guide the country toward using its resourcefulness to solve the problems we have and make things better-- not surrender.

[Brenda Bowers]

Many have mentioned what damage a Congress controlled by Democrats can do with Obama as president and creating new social programs. The hope is that the Republicans will retain enough power to hold the line. We are forgetting Obama will also be appointing his cabinet and judges (possibly two on the Supreme Court who are liberals and may just be willing to retire at long last). So even if the Republicans in Congress can hold the line the judges and individual department heads can do a lot within their departments towards adopting a Socialist agenda.

Since these people can set policy with very little attention being paid a twik here and a loop hole there can gum up the department for decades before it is debugged. This happen in the late 1960's with the welfare programsfor food stamps and AFDC. It was believed that of course no one would lie so all a mother had to do when applying for any kind of aid was to give her child's name and birth date. Well hello Welfare Queens! and anyone else who wanted to jump on the bus. Social workers knew of the problems and pretty much the ones who were lying but their hands were tied by program directives. These loopholes weren't patched up until the late 1980's and 1990's. BB

[Joe Guarino]

Brenda, Obama in concert with a Democratic Congress can do an awful lot of damage-- as you say, in various ways-- especially if the GOP loses the filibuster.

[Bubba]

"I don't know what you are talking about, Bubba."

Of course you don't You never do.

"I've never said that I am in favor of inventing Constitutional rights."

Not directly, of course.

However, the drum beating for the awarding of habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants, in this face of all historical precedence, certainly qualifies as inventing Constitutional rights.

That's only one of your many beliefs that fall into that category, all of which are......classic examples of my point.

But out of respect to Joe, I don't think we need to let you derail the thread.

[Roch101]

Buffoon.

[Stormy]

Bubba, it looks like Roch has no response other than trying to insult. He usually does better than that.

[bubba]

"Bubba, it looks like Roch has no response other than trying to insult."

I've come to expect nothing different in return from him whenever I point out his academic and intellectual failure on issues such as those discussed here.

[Stormy]

Bubba,

He's really a pretty smart guy and generally a nice person, but he seems to be stuck on liberal and can't find a different gear.