Obama is a Communist? Please debunk...

Status
Not open for further replies.
All Christians are small "c" communists as well. Acts 4:32-35 --
Well. . .the early Christian church was.
Something I like to point out often.

And according to Acts, God was such a communist that the penalty for holding back private property (and not redistributing the wealth) was death. (See Acts 5:1-11)

I always wonder how Christians who think "communism" and "socialism" are bad words interpret this stuff. God is wrong and they're right?
 
Well. . .the early Christian church was.
Something I like to point out often.

And according to Acts, God was such a communist that the penalty for holding back private property (and not redistributing the wealth) was death. (See Acts 5:1-11)

I always wonder how Christians who think "communism" and "socialism" are bad words interpret this stuff. God is wrong and they're right?

Well, not quite. This is how good capitalists wiggle out of the clear implications of Acts. Peter doesn't admonish Ananias and Sapphira for holding back; in fact, he clearly says the money was theirs to do with as they pleased. It's that they lied about giving all when they had just given part. They looked for a glory that wasn't rightfully theirs. That's what got God so hot that they fell down dead.

The early Christians were small c communists, you see. The communism was not a matter of being enforced from on high or from Rome, it was in their hearts -- the Kingdom of Heaven, as the gospel of Matthew puts it. Private property remains private property if you so choose (render unto Caesar and all that). But a mark of primitive Christianity is being a communist so wholeheartedly that you do consider your own property that of the community. Capitalists should feel free to be exactly who they are, but they should never deceive themselves that they are being the best Christians they can be when they do so.

:)
 
I have run across these allegations, and would greatly appreciate some help debunking or contextualizing them:

1. Obama campaigned under the New Party in Chicago for his Senate seat, which is a branch of the American Communist Workers Party, who admit that their goal is to elect Communists to Federal and State government.
He's a democrat now. It's special pleading to say that his (supposed) party affiliation then counts whereas his current one does not.
 
Well, not quite. This is how good capitalists wiggle out of the clear implications of Acts. Peter doesn't admonish Ananias and Sapphira for holding back; in fact, he clearly says the money was theirs to do with as they pleased. It's that they lied about giving all when they had just given part. They looked for a glory that wasn't rightfully theirs. That's what got God so hot that they fell down dead.

The early Christians were small c communists, you see. The communism was not a matter of being enforced from on high or from Rome, it was in their hearts -- the Kingdom of Heaven, as the gospel of Matthew puts it. Private property remains private property if you so choose (render unto Caesar and all that). But a mark of primitive Christianity is being a communist so wholeheartedly that you do consider your own property that of the community. Capitalists should feel free to be exactly who they are, but they should never deceive themselves that they are being the best Christians they can be when they do so.

:)
There is no similarity between voluntary membership in a commune and communist principles applied unilaterally to a society. Further, today's communes often are seen acting in capitalist fashion in the larger society, as the early Christian ones did also.
 
Well. . .the early Christian church was.
Something I like to point out often.

And according to Acts, God was such a communist that the penalty for holding back private property (and not redistributing the wealth) was death. (See Acts 5:1-11)

I always wonder how Christians who think "communism" and "socialism" are bad words interpret this stuff. God is wrong and they're right?

Perhaps you need to reread the passage, they didn't die for holding back part of their property, they died because they lied about it to God. As Peter pointed out, the money was theirs to do what they pleased with, but instead of holding some back and saying they did, they lied and claimed to have given it all. That was the cause of their deaths.

Now, ot.

Most Americans would consider many of our parties far too socialist and probably call most of our politicians a bunch of communists, even the ones we consider right wing. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with a bit of socialism. Government paid for Health, Welfare, and Education, as well as Accident compensation to declog the court with frivalous law suits. The US should try adopting a few of them rather than letting Big Business and Lawyers run the country and charge whatever they like.
 
Unless you consider the possibility of entryism.
They could say that, but then you'd have to ask what their evidence is that he's bringing in communist ideas instead of democratic ones, and you can also ask what their evidence is that he's not a Kenyan democrat who was using entryism on the communist party of which he was supposedly a member.
 
Many Republicans argued for the bail-out plan. Are they all Communists now?

Do you even know what Communism and Socialism actually means??

When Obama starts advocating for the COMPLETE Federal nationalization of ALL industries, banks, factories, natural resources.....advocates for the abolition of ALL private property...advocates for the disallusion of Congress in favor of a ONE party rubber-stamp legislature....THEN one can argue that he is a Communist.

What is Barack Obama? He is a Liberal Democrat...bordering on a Social-Democrat.
 
Last edited:
I'll start a new thread on this in the Religion Forum.


Well, not quite. This is how good capitalists wiggle out of the clear implications of Acts. Peter doesn't admonish Ananias and Sapphira for holding back; in fact, he clearly says the money was theirs to do with as they pleased. It's that they lied about giving all when they had just given part. They looked for a glory that wasn't rightfully theirs. That's what got God so hot that they fell down dead.


Perhaps you need to reread the passage, they didn't die for holding back part of their property, they died because they lied about it to God. As Peter pointed out, the money was theirs to do what they pleased with, but instead of holding some back and saying they did, they lied and claimed to have given it all. That was the cause of their deaths.
.
 
Just read his platform. There is nothing Communist in it. One might argue that he is more slightly-socialist than the also-slightly-socialist Republicans, but hardly Communist.

Okay, but has he ever denied sacrificing babies to his Satanic Master?
 
There is no similarity between voluntary membership in a commune and communist principles applied unilaterally to a society. Further, today's communes often are seen acting in capitalist fashion in the larger society, as the early Christian ones did also.

mhaze has given us quite a good example of the phenomenon I described. I have never seen mhaze describe this nation as a Christian one, though. Most of those who do seem quite unaware of just what it is they are implying.
 
At Stormfront they call him a "******". I swear. True story.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Today I turned on the radio and that old fruit bat Barbara Simpson was comparing Obama to Franz Anton Mesmer and reading straight from the 'Communist Manifesto".
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is even if the stuff in the OP were true, that still wouldn't make him a communist. None of that is evidence of him acting like a commie.
 
What is a "small c" communist?

Well for starters, William Ayers, who Obama spent years associating with, describes himself as one. So let's look at Ayers more closely.

First of all, he never renounced his terrorist activities during the Vietnam War and now says he didn't do enough. Bombing innocent people, that is. So I guess a "small c" communist can still think violence to promote change is appropriate if the situation is right.

The SDS and Weatherman underground that sprang from it (and which Ayers helped found) openly proclaimed their goal was world Communism. And not with a "small c". Back then he wrote a manifesto titled "Prairie Fire" (http://www.zombietime.com/prairie_fire/ ) in which he said "We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years." He said "We need a revolutionary communist party in order to lead the struggle, give coherence and direction to the fight, seize power and build the new society." That document was republished as a book in 2006, coinciding with the start of Obama's run for President. Coincidence? Maybe.

Now Obama defenders say Ayers is reformed. Maybe they think that his abandoning violence as the way to the SDS and WUO goal of making our society communist turns a "big C" into a more palatable "small c"? Afterall, Ayers is now just an *educator*. Never mind that his live-in girl friend back then was also an educator ... of small children. And she died while building a nail bomb to murder hundreds of innocent people at a military dance. Never mind that communist societies (from USSR to Red China to Cuba to Venezuela) know the importance of controlling the education of youth. They put a lot of effort into brainwashing the young.

So why wouldn't Ayers decide that the way to change the world to his liking was to become a professor? That wouldn't require that he change any of his core views ... say about capitalism. Indeed it wasn't long ago (2006) that Ayers attended an education forum in Venezuala and stood on a stage before a large crowd with communist ("small c"? "big C"?) dictator Hugo Chavez by his side. He gave a speech in which he said he supported “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by raising his fist and shouting “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!” Has he really changed?

And disturbing as that is, it's even more disturbing that Ayers had years to shape Obama's views about education. Remember, Obama and Ayers spent 5 years as co-chairs of a 100+ million dollar effort to reform education in Chicago that focused on teaching "social justice" in the classroom. Ayers was explicit about the need to teach children that America is racist and militaristic, and that the capitalist system is unfair and oppressive. A study done afterwords shows that the project didn't accomplish much beyond that, with no noticeable improvement in academic performance which is what it was sold to accomplish.

Ayers is now the recently elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the largest organization of education school professors and researchers in the country. The president of AERA was Obama's top education advisor during the campaign and she recently coauthored several education books with Ayers. Hard to believe that Obama then doesn't agree with her ... and Ayers. Who knows ... she may even end up as Secretary of Education.

So has Ayers really changed? Or has he just found a different way to approach the problem of making us communist?

In April of 2002, Bill Ayers said the following "I considered myself partly an anarchist then and I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist which is to say I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing." And Ayers still openly calls for the end of capitalism and American imperialism ... the same thing the "big C" communists said they wanted in the 70's. In 2002, seven days after Ayers made the above statement, he joined Obama in a panel discussion at a gathering at the University of Illinois-Chicago on working toward social change and an extremely liberal agenda.

Could it be that Obama didn't know what Ayers really was ... what he thought back then? Well as Ayers said back in 2002 "I'm very open about what I think and nobody here is surprised about what I think." And in 2002, besides that panel, they were also going to Board of Director meetings of the Wood Fund. Four meetings that year alone. They had lots of social contact and time to exchange ideas. In fact, Obama admits to their talking on the phone and emailing one another to "exchange ideas". Yet Obama claimed during the campaign he didn't know that Ayers was a radical with terrorist credentials. How could he not know? And how could those discussions with "little c" Ayers not shape Obama's current ideas and views? Say about education and "social justice"? They sure hold a lot of common views on various topics. Just coincidence?

And Ayers isn't the only avowed communist that has had Obama's ear over the years. He admitted in his book the important mentor role that someone named "Frank" had when he was a teenager. Well now it's known that "Frank" was actually Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis. He was a the hard-core Soviet apologist who was actively trying to spread communism through the unions in Hawaii at the time. He wrote poetry championing the Soviet Union and communism that he recited to Obama. And no doubt he talked about many other things from a communist perspective. How could this not have had an impression on Obama during those teen years when we are most impressionable?

And regarding those impressionable years, Obama's father wrote a paper called "Problems With Our Socialism" that advocated 100% taxation of the rich, communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land. Think he wasn't a communist? Friends of Obama's mother described her as a communist sympathizer. In fact, she met Obama's father in a Russian class. Obama said "the values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics." Hmmmmmm. Obama's brother Roy and cousin Odinga are also marxists. As is his older brother Abongo "Roy" who Obama wrote was “the person who made me proudest of all". Hmmmmmm. Are we to believe that none of these family members had any influence on Obama's views?

And let's not forget Obama was introduced into politics by Alice Palmer ... at the home of communist Ayers and his communist wife, Dohrn. At that meeting was Quentin Young, who described Obama and Ayers as "friends", and who was once accused by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities of being a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). From 1983 to 1985, Palmer was on the executive board of the "US Peace Council". Several people, including Lawrence Wittner who was a 15 year veteran of the CPUSA National Council, say that the US Peace Council was created by Communist party activists. Several known communists served on the board beside Palmer. Nine years before that gathering in Ayers home, Palmer was the only African-American journalist to travel to the Soviet Union to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. After that visit, she openly praised the Soviet Union in an article she wrote.

Yes indeed, the air around Obama has been thick with communists over the years.

Until it was noticed by conservatives, another communist member from SDS and Ayers school reform days, Mike Klonsky, had a blog on the Obama campaign website. Obama willingly accepted contributions during the campaign from various communist groups ... like the Communist Party USA and CODEPINK. He's had contacts with groups and individuals that espouse communism or communist agendas dressed up as something else. Like the Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), which has several members of the SDS and WUO on its board, including Dohrn. The church he attended for over 20 years espouses Liberation Theology which clearly has it's roots in Marxism and espouses many of communisms themes. His campaign even allowed a band to play the Soviet National Anthem at the beginning of concerts which were given for Obama in places like Oregon.

So regardless of whether Obama "is" a communist (I suppose you could use the Clinton definition and claim he isn't), his views have certainly been shaped by them over the years and there are still many communists only an arms length from his campaign organization. They are delighted he won. Don't you think? :D
 
Well for starters, William Ayers, who Obama spent years associating with, describes himself as one. So let's look at Ayers more closely.

"Well for starters" I knew a guy for several years, but only saw him twice. One of those times we had a short chat at a surprise b-day party with a few people. The other time he and I were working on an undergrad project with a bunch of other students from our class.

That does not make his politics mine.
 
The main problem with your pet Red Scare Project is that it's a flimsy Red Scare Project.

If you were being intellectually honest - or Hell, just intellectual - you'd note that none of your paranoid yarn can possibly lead to a definitive statement that "Obama is a communist". You haven't pointed to any quotes from Obama, for example, that prove your paranoid, groundless assertion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom