Barack Obama: Communist or Socialist?

 ACCORDING TO OBAMA, CAPITALISM “HAS NEVER WORKED”

by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2011

Was Obama groomed to be the first socialist or communist "leader" of the U.S.?

(Dec. 28, 2011) — Dr. Paul Kengor is a professor of political science at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, a school that ranks with Hillsdale College in Michigan as one of the nation’s finest, but least known, liberal arts colleges.  Kengor is the author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism; William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand; and God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life.  

In his most recent book: Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century, Kengor makes the point that American Communists have always been quite realistic about their inability to impose a Soviet-style Communist regime on the American people.  He writes, “We now know that American Communists and their masters in Moscow were acutely aware that they could never gain the popular support they needed to enlist the support of a much wider coalition that could help them push their private agenda.”

But what should be most distressing for Americans is Dr. Kengor’s discovery that “it was nothing short of stunning to research this book during the presidential bid of Barack Obama and hear so many of the names in my research surface repeatedly in the background of the man who became president of the United States of America.  The way in which so many names and themes from the Cold War past aligned and made their way into Obama’s orbit was chilling.”

As conservative Alan Caruba points out in his December 12 column, America’s Communist President, “Obama’s December 8th speech in Osawatomie, Kansas revealed to anyone paying attention that the president is a Communist.”  Referring to the free market system that has made this the most prosperous nation on Earth, Obama said, “It doesn’t work.  It has never worked.”

It brings to mind an article titled The First Time I Heard of Barack, by Tom Fife, first published on November 20, 2008, and which has been held in reserve on countless computer hard drives, awaiting confirmation of its legitimacy.  Fife wrote, “In 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.”

Fife goes on to describe a dinner party at the Russian couple’s Moscow apartment early in 1992. He tells us that, as the evening progressed and the dinner conversation became more and more political in nature, Mrs. M. “developed a decidedly anti-American edge.”

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

The Americans responded matter-of-factly that there was nothing to bar a black person from being elected president and that, given the right person and the right circumstances… “America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.”

Not satisfied with that response, Mrs. M. continued, “What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”

Fife reports that the Americans stared at her in disbelief.  One responded, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”  To which Mrs. M. replied, “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.”

As Fife reported, the woman then became much more specific, saying that the man being groomed for the presidency was from Hawaii, that he went to school in California, that he lived in Chicago, and that he would soon be elected to the state legislature.  She said, “Have no doubt; he is one of us, a Soviet.”

Most who are aware of the Fife article question its authenticity.  Is it fact or fiction?  Does Fife really exist?  Did the 1992 dinner party in Moscow really happen?  While the Fife article is still available on the Internet, it has yet to be proven or disproven and Fife is a difficult man to track down.  And while the story of the dinner party conversation in Moscow may be pure fiction, the specifics appear to fit nicely with what we actually know about Obama’s path to power.

For example, we know that a young black man from Hawaii who was educated in California and in Ivy League schools, lived in Chicago, entered American politics, was elected to the Illinois state senate and to the U.S. Senate, and later became president.  We know that to be true.

We are also aware that Democrats in Congress attempted to amend the U.S. Constitution to make it possible for an individual who is not a “natural born” U.S. citizen to serve as president or vice president.  The first of these attempts was made in June 2003, followed by a second attempt in September 2003, a year before Obama exploded onto the national scene as keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Was that pure coincidence, or are we allowed to suspect that it might have been part of some grand international conspiracy?

If the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U,S. Constitution has not represented a major problem at any time in history, why were Democrats suddenly so concerned about it in 2003 when a young black man, fathered by an African Communist, raised by a radical left mother and grandparents, and mentored by a well-known black Communist, was emerging as a rising star in the Democratic Party?  Was it pure coincidence, or was it part of a grand conspiracy?

Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996, one of 6,978 state legislators in the United States.  He served eight totally unremarkable years in the legislature… voting “present” on some 129 occasions so as not to create a record that might later be difficult to defend… before announcing his candidacy for the United States Senate in 2004.  Then, months before being elected to the U.S. Senate, he was selected to deliver the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Of the thousands of capable young Democrats available to them… men and women of experience and accomplishment… why did convention officials find it necessary to award that “plum” to a young man who had accomplished little or nothing in his life?  Was his name drawn out of a hat, or was his selection dictated by a grand international conspiracy?

Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2004 and was sworn into office on January 4, 2005.  Almost immediately, he launched his campaign for the presidency.   In the ensuing three years he devoted most of his time to his presidential ambitions and on August 28, 2008 he defeated Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.  Was his victory over the vaunted Clinton machine the result of tactical superiority, or was it purchased for him?

Following his nomination, when the Chairman and the Secretary of the Democratic National Convention, Nancy Pelosi and Alice Travis Germond, respectively, were required to certify the names, home addresses, and qualifications of their candidates to the election boards of the 50 states, so that ballots could be printed, why did they certify to only one state, the State of Hawaii, that Obama and Biden were eligible to serve under provisions of the U.S. Constitution?

So the question arises, what role did the Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama’s childhood mentor, play in his intellectual development?  And what did two Democratic Congressmen know that caused them to offer proposed constitutional amendments in 2003 that would benefit no one but Obama in 2008?  Specifically, what did they know about Obama’s presidential ambitions and his inability to meet the “natural born Citizen” standard, and when did they know it?  And why did Speaker Pelosi, third in line to the presidency, purposely aid and abet in the commission of a felony by purposely hiding from state election board officials, and from the American people, the fact that the man nominated for President of the United States at the 2008 Democratic National Convention was, in fact, ineligible to serve in that office?

The speech that Obama delivered at Osawatomie, Kansas was a speech that could just as easily have been delivered in the Presidium of the Communist Party, USSR.  Now, as Republicans focus on the Iowa caucuses, they must choose a candidate capable of convincing the American people that everything that Obama has accomplished in eight years can and must be undone.  But first, they must nominate a candidate who can not only defeat Obama, but defeat him utterly and completely.  His defeat must be of such a magnitude that he will not want to remain in the country that he has been taught from childhood to hate… and where he will be forever an object of derision.  Short of impeachment and conviction, it is the only thing that will send the proper message to those who put him where he is.

phollrah@yahoo.com

6 Responses to "Barack Obama: Communist or Socialist?"

  1. BlackSunshine84   Friday, December 30, 2011 at 9:59 PM

    I’m not buying this story. 0bama looks nothing like Barack 0bama Sr. or his supposed mother. He looks Indonesian.
    0bama is a communist, socialist, progressive, Marxist, whatever and we know this because he ran for Illinois state senate as a member of Chicago’s New Party.http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/np1.jpg

  2. RacerJim   Friday, December 30, 2011 at 8:43 AM

    The preponderance of evidence available during the years preceding Obama’s announcement of his campaign for POTUS, much of it from Obama himself, makes inescapable the conclusion that in no way, shape or form could he have passed a national security clearance background investigation for even the lowest national security clearance, never mind the highest.

  3. Jim Delaney   Thursday, December 29, 2011 at 11:06 AM

    Intensely interesting post. Had never heard about this dinner party before. Gives one pause, for sure. At some point, one has to look at the preponderance of evidence over the years and accept what is, most likely, the inescapable conclusion that our gov’t has, in fact, been taken over in a bloodless coup d’etat. My abiding worry is that far too many Americans–in name only–would willingly trade their liberties and the Constitution for handouts. The terrible truth is that we just might have Comrade Obama for four more years. But, I also believe that if that occurs–an insuffferable possibility– the country will unravel. Why? Patriots outnumber the unprincipled me-first entitlees and the former will NOT accept four more years of tyranny. Civil disobedience and secession–if not outright rebellion–WOULD most certainly ensue. And that’s precisely the remedy our founders would have counseled.

  4. FedupwDC   Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 5:28 PM

    @ Paul:

    “Now, as Republicans focus on the Iowa caucuses, they must choose a candidate capable of convincing the American people that everything that Obama has accomplished in eight years can and must be undone. ”

    Are you trying to tell us we are going to be stuck with the idiot in chief another four years?

  5. DOTK   Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM

    It was not only Democrats that attempted to change the NBC requirement for POTUS ( of course we wonder… do they KNOW that only an amendment can change the constitution, not legislative attempts??) but Republicans were in on it too in those years. Namely Issa and current Sec. of Transportation Ray LaHood! Ray Lahood (R-IL) is worth considering. Not only did he put his name on the bill to change the meaning of NBC, but he was instrumental in getting Obama to the US Senate. I remember very well the moaning and groaning of LaHood and his very public hate for the IL Republican candidate to the US Senate, and he loudly helped derail Republican Jack Ryan along with other conniving Rs in IL. But LaHood was the biggest blabbering fool who loves to see his face in the papers! Jack Ryan bowed out after Obama and Axelrod got a Cal. judge to expose Ryan’s PRIVATE divorce records. Six weeks from the election, IL voters who FAVORED Ryan over Obama were left without a candidate for the US Senate. The rest is history, as Alan Keyes stepped in and he was widely reviled by the Republicans in IL, too. It was Ray LaHood who was gifted with the Sec. of Transportation spot. Think about that!

  6. A pen   Wednesday, December 28, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    Every day he remains free in this country we are defeated by ignorance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.