THREE exposes about Barack Obama have hit the top 20 lists virtually overnight. This brings back the whole question: ‘Whom did Barry know, and why did he know them?’ Some cried foul when these connections were first brought up, and continue to do so, but they are ignoring some common sense about associations.
There seems to be some confusion as to what ‘guilty by association’ means. It is a phrase used in the study of “Logic”. (Logic used to be taught in high schools. If it is found at all nowadays, it is taught in college Philosophy departments.) ‘Guilty by association’ is an “informal fallacy” of logic; it means that you reject someone’s logical argument because of those with whom he associates. I think we can all see how that is unfair and illogical.
However, we have the ability, and at times even the obligation to assess someone’s associations; we’ve always done it and we need to do it.
Probably the best example is getting a job. In every resume, we are required to provide “References”. We all know what these are: they are our closest associations, people who can vouch for our basic character and virtue. If I as an employer were to criticize you for the kind of people you hang around with, could you respond that he is using the ‘guilty by association’ card? Of course not! ‘Just because all of my closest associates are drug dealers doesn’t mean you can make anything of it!’ [Yeah, right! And I don’t have to give you a job, either.]
Other examples can be found when we have trials in courts of law. We can grill witnesses, jurors, lawyers and judges about who they know and why. One of the basic things we do is make judgments on associations because it is a basic way of getting at the truth. It’s something we have always done and there is no doubt it is something we have to do.
Now, Barack Obama is applying for the biggest job in the world! Also, part of the genius of our political system is the informal trial by fire candidates are forced to go through. We should take a good look at his references; the media should be forcing him to explain and account for his associations. These new books should be tested, studied and used to confront Obama and his campaign. What do we know so far? Let’s do a cursory review, shall we?
– In his own book, Obama identifies a strong influence on his youthful years, a man named “Frank”. We now know this is Frank Marshall Davis, who was a Communist Party member.
– We have all heard of Reverend Wright, but most have missed the main point: the main characteristic of “liberation theology” is that it is Marxist not Christian. (Obama has expressed doubts about the afterlife; is that a clue?) There is no way to miss this from a multitude of the church’s own statements. Obama donated large amounts of money to this group. When trouble broke about it, once again, Obama at first tried to deny knowing anything about what they teach; that it is “not particularly controversial”.
– Fr. Fleger is also part of this “liberation theology” cabal and everyone on the South Side knows it. As a state senator, Obama funneled hundreds of thousands of earmarks to Fr. Fleger and now claims to reject his message.
– William Ayers & Bernadette Dorn are unrepentant Marxist bombers. Obama’s attempts to pass them off as casual friends are totally disingenuous. He worked for Ayers for eight years, was associated with him in several other official ways and chose his house to launch his political career.
– Tony Rezko is a shady operative who has connected Obama to a host of radical figures. For instance, he used Rezko to make a large contribution to Hamid Dabashi (the one who invited Ahmadinijad to Columbia).
– At first, you could go to Obama’s web site and see many of this ilk featured. His main blogger on the site was an open Communist. (His site went down for ‘maintenance’ and ‘lost’ him; we can assume a lot of things have ‘disappeared’.) Remember the Che Guevera flag at his campaign headquarters in Texas and all the references to him on the site? Many of his ‘bundlers’ (those who get around contribution laws by putting large donors together) have been Communists or Marxists.
– During his “community organizer” stint, Obama made the choice to associate himself with the Saul 
Alinsky-style “revolution not revelation” model. Alinsky emphasized confrontational, polarizing, racially divisive tactics with a conscious Marxist bent. He is quoted as saying, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds (Communists) is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things….”
Now tell me this: would Barack Obama be able to get a job for the FBI or CIA with this Marxist background? And he wants us to hire him to lead the free world?
To be fair, basing a presidential choice just upon associations is not enough, but associations and ideology are, no doubt, going to have an affect on policy and on character. One 
possible complication in judging is that Marxism sanctions dishonesty about what one is really doing! Did you notice the globalist, redistrubutionist and other socialist references in his speech in Berlin? I won’t spend the time here to search for all the clues. I’ll leave it to all of you to decide where you see evidence of a ‘Marxist effect’.
In ancient Greece the Sophists tried to push the supreme power of Rhetoric. They said the power of persuasion is everything, no matter what the truth is. They were opposed by others who evolved into the line of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who said what is important is Truth, Character and Virtue. Let us not make the same mistake – let us choose Virtue and not Rhetoric. No matter what game he’s talking, we should find out if Obama is ‘guilty by association’.
Well said!
Nice article. I think this summarizes very well the reason for so many people’s misgivings. America doesn’t care that much if you are black, hispanic or asian. But America does *not* like marxists, socialists and communists. That is the stinky fart that is hanging around Obama.
Joe said: ‘That is the stinky fart that is hanging around Obama.’
The first picture I got was Pigpen from the Peanuts comic strip…although, of course, Pigpen is kinda cool, and Obambi is not.
mlajoie2, thanks for the good info.
Don’t forget Kwame Kilpatrick and his association with Barack Hussein and Rev. Wright. Godd grief when will people wake up.
I can see where an individual may hang around with a “bad” crowd. But when an individual calls some members of the “bad” crowd “mentors,” then of course it is quite obvious they are saying, “I am getting information from this person that I feel is or will be useful in my life — influence on my behavior, character or ideology.”
Barack Hussein Obama has made such pronouncements. Besides, you can hear for yourself the selfsame ideologies of his mentors in Obama’s modus operandi. Obama’s actions are directed specifically toward achieving goals similar to those he calls mentors.
Note also that Obama was not, for 20 years, affected by the vile anti-American belching from his preacher, Jeremiah Wright. Birds of a feather? Obama marched in the million man march with the radical Black Muslim crowd. And, Obama had dealings in Chicago with Resko that are similar to the dealings Resko had in real estate.
The mention of Obama’s associations is only a reference. It is more crucial to note the similitude of Obama’s character and actions to those with whom he associates.
http://www.nextgeneration.com/nextgenblog/
Mr. Obama is smart. But, his shenanigans are being noticed. He has moved toward the center in an appeal to the masses. And yet, he has perturbed those who gave him the nomination.
His message is all out anti-capitalism. He wants to rob from the oil companies and give to the citizens. Doesn’t this sound a lot like Mr. Chavez? Now, isn’t production down in Venezuela now that political appointees are running the oil fields?
Mr. Obama is trying to buy votes. “If you vote for me, I will take the money from the evil oil corporations and give each of you $1000.” What right does he have to take money from those evil producers?
I guarantee if that happens, ExxonMobil will simply reincorporate in a tax friendly country. And who could blame them? And what do we get out of it? Nothing. Actually, less than nothing, because ExxonMobil will pay zero taxes on income because it will be sent to the new country and any operations in this country will be break even subsidiaries.
With that said, why aren’t there talks of windfall profits on Hollywood? Or even on his personal wealth?
For him, it is simply Marxism, taking from producers and giving to the leeches.
Good post Mlajoie2.
Obama’s communist are coming home to roost. All this tells me is that the MSM print, are communists,each and every one of them. They won’t print anything that will hurt their agenda, and print lies and half truths to the opposite. A half hearted honest search of Obama’s life would eliminate him as a candidate. We live in dangerous times and can’t allow the Quislings to destroy our way of life. Wake up America before it’s too late.
Who do you trust a Naval officer or a Lawyer?
Ask any Obama supporter this question, “If Obama were not running for President would he still be an associate/friend with Bill Ayers?” If they say No, you’ll know they are either lying or just stupid.
You wrote: “- In his own book, Obama identifies the premier influence in his life by far, his “mentor” par excellence. This is the only man he doesn’t identify fully, calling him simply “Frank”. We now know this is Frank Marshall Davis, a full-fledged Communist of the strongest kind. He is one of the few in America who did not leave the Communist Party after Stalin was revealed for the monster he was. Obama seemed to be trying to hide this by not naming him directly.”
Untrue for a number of reasons.
1. Obama refers to a number of people by only their first name.
2. Obama does not identify Frank as his mentor.
3. Frank was not a member of the Communist Party when Stalin was revealed for the monster he was (Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939).
4. Frank was not a “full-fledged Communist of the strongest kind.”
“Accuracy In Media” is not a reliable or accurate source of information.
dabashi had nothing to do with ahmadinjed. get your fact right! ahmadinejad was invited by columbia’s president lee bollinger and dabashi wrote a damning article about the whole thing–the man is a relentless critic of the islamic republic of iran!
the man can look you in the eye and lie, thats far scarier than any “friend” hes had. you can’t trust that, i can’t trust that. it make syou wonder at the wisdom of them democratic party and their obviously loe=w opinion of the intelligence of the american voter. i have one friend who is staunchly in obama’s corner, another friend was an edwards fan, its funny, neither of them actually believes most of the party line of the dems. they are just afraid of the constrants that the consevatives would put on them.
Mark Davis.
1. Why does he not identify him if he expresses how important he is?
2. Does it matter what word he uses? I erred in typing “mentor” instead of ‘mentor’. You can’t deny he looked up to him above all others when he was a teenager.
3. The point is not the timing. The point is the Party lost a great part of its membership after 1939. Davis was one of the few who stayed in dead lockstep with Politburo. That shows how committed he was to Marxism and applies to point #4
Finally, I challenge anyone to read what Davis wrote and see if they feel comfortable with it. Obama says they spent a lot of time listening to his poems and having him read his writings. How could it not have had an effect? That’s the whole point
Reader,
I will take your word for it about Dabashi for the time being. I know I read someone state what I wrote; I will assume they were uninformed. However, the point about all the radical connections remains. They keep coming out. Taken in aggregate, how can anyone deny a pattern?
By the way, what is “Accuracy in Media”? I’m actually quite new to all this posting and blogging but I’m assuming it’s a conservative site of some sort. At any rate, I did not rely on it for all my information if that’s what you mean; in fact, I don’t know what it is.
By the way, are you saying it was a GOOD thing for Obama to use Rezko to channel money to a man like Dabashi? Isn’t he an anti-Semitic liberation theology fanatic a la Wright et al?? Whether he technically invited Iran’s leader or not, the major point of this piece is pretty well preserved totally intact! Is there ANY denying a ‘pattern’ for Obama?
I have no idea what you are trying to say, Mark Davis. For if you are trying to insist that BHO did not had a relationship with, or was a fan of Frank Marshall Davis, you are completely wrong on all counts.
Frank Marshall Davis… aka “Frank” in his book… is indeed *that* Frank. Davis was a friend of Obama’s grandfather.
This Honolulu article suggests that Davis’ previous Communist party registration is a non-news sort of tidbit, and that he was really only concerned with race and black rights in America. Leaving the debate about Davis’ degree of socialism/Marxism/Communism aside, this, combined with a blog post on Obama’s own campaign site by author Edgar Tidwell pretty much puts to rest that the “Frank” in the book is indeed Frank Marshall Davis.
Thus your not so subtle suggestion that there is no relationship between BHO and Davis is a result of your willing indoctrination to believe what the BHO campaign wants you to believe.
What is only left after this fact is just what kind of influence did Davis have on BHO? He’s already surrounded himself with black theologists, home grown US terrorists who get off on technicalities but admit they are guilty… (and wish they had not only succeeded but bombed more US infrastructure,) plus various other self serving Chicago scum bags. Generally the latter is not uncommon for pols, but BHO has more than his fair quota of questionable relations on record already.
I suggest that what Davis said to BHO as a child, or his relationships may have some small bearing. But what is most important is what Obama says and does today, and in his political past.
And frankly, the man “says and does” affirmative action (preferential treatment and anti-equal opportunity mentality), windfall taxes on select industries he doesn’t like (i.e. control how much profit is acceptable for private enterprise that he disapproves of)., socialized medicine, unbelievable expense on the taxpayer for his energy programs, and deplorable understanding of foreign policy and the world’s players on the stage.
I don’t care if Frank Marshall Davis.. whom he DID know and write about in his book.. taught him Communism 101 or not. Obama has arrived at that same point himself… with or without Davis. He plans to govern with Marxist/socialist policies… and that’s enuf for me to say no bloody way, bubba. You, evidently, welcome a Marxist America.
So what you consider “inaccurate” is actually not inaccurate. It is merely light shed on potentially how Obama arrived at being the socialist he is today.
“1. Why does he not identify him if he expresses how important he is?” Because in the style of a memoir, people are often referred to only by their first names. Obama apparently did not feel he was important enough to warrant a last name.
“2. Does it matter what word he uses? I erred in typing “mentor” instead of ‘mentor’. You can’t deny he looked up to him above all others when he was a teenager.” Because the right-wing blogosphere constructed the meme that Frank was his mentor in or to exaggerate Frank’s radical influence over Obama.
“3. The point is not the timing. The point is the Party lost a great part of its membership after 1939. Davis was one of the few who stayed in dead lockstep with Politburo. That shows how committed he was to Marxism and applies to point #4”
Davis was never in “dead lockstep with Politburo.” That is a disinformation meme of the right-wing blogosphere. They have it wrong about Frank Marshall Davis. Edgar Tidwell, whom AIM’s Cliff Kincaid cites as “an expert on the life and writings of Davis,” demolishes right-wing misrepresentation of Davis’s radical influence in one simple paragraph:
“Although my research indicates that Davis joined the CPUSA as a “closet member” during World War II, there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a Party member before WWII. Further, to those attempting to make the specious stand for the concrete, there is no evidence that he instructed Barack Obama in communist ideology. Frank Marshall Davis did NOT believe in overthrowing the USA. He was committed to what the nation professed to be. For him, communism was primarily an intellectual vehicle to achieve a political end-a possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL Americans.” (See http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/Kaleokualoha).
“Finally, I challenge anyone to read what Davis wrote and see if they feel comfortable with it. Obama says they spent a lot of time listening to his poems and having him read his writings. How could it not have had an effect? That’s the whole point.”
While his pro-Soviet poetry is only a small fraction of his writing, it does make me uncomfortable. But I recognize that the the Soviet Union was an ally of the United States when this was written during WWII. In that context, things are different.
Mata Harley wrote “I have no idea what you are trying to say, Mark Davis. For if you are trying to insist that BHO di not had a relationship with, or was a fan of Frank Marshall Davis, you are completely wrong on all counts.”
I apologize for conveying a “not so subtle suggestion that there is no relationship between BHO and Davis is a result of your willing indoctrination to believe what the BHO campaign wants you to believe.” Frank Marshall Davis is definitely the “Frank” mentioned in Obama’s book. What I am trying to say is that Frank was nowhere near the radical influence portrayed by the current right-wing disinformation campaign, as outlined in the referenced blog.
Perhaps this post from the same blog says it better: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5nhJ
This was the quote I was referring to in my post. This hardly belies Davis’ continued devotion to Marxism/socialism. Remember that Marxism is a step to full out Communism.
That he thinks socialism is the “possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life…” indicates Davis’ mentality.
However what I said remains the same. The only thing that matters is what Obama is today. He is a socialist/Marxist by his own proposed policies. Period. That Davis had, or did not have an influence is moot. But obviously, by surrounding himself with the characters he has in life, he is a professional victim, bent on forcing socialism onto a capitalist republic.
No… no… and did I say NO! Not while I breathe will I accept this willingly.
Mark Davis,
“Not important enough”? That was not my impression! And as to how ‘Communist’ he was, that’s really just a matter of degrees. How can you deny he continued to be a fervent Marxist? Did he ever come out and say ‘I was wrong to believe the things I did’ or ‘I am not a Marxist’? And Mataharley surely gets to the bottom line. Why are there so many of the same kind? You can’t deny he tried to HIDE some of these other connections, right? Why doesn’t he talk often and proudly about all of them if they are so innocent? You don’t deny that, do you?
I didn’t even list all of the things I’ve heard. Are you going to take all of them one by one by one and explain how they ALL ‘aren’t really what they seem to be’?
As I said, if he tried to get hired by the FBI or CIA, I don’t think he would get hired? The pattern is there. Period. If it walks like a duck….
Further, if Davis was a Communist at one time, and never said he rejected it as a philosophy, how can you be sure of any of his protestations? They condone saying anything to further the cause. When is he being sincere and when is he hiding what he truly believes. Same point applies to Obama.
MataHarley wrote “he thinks socialism is the “possible tool for gaining the constitutional freedoms of life…” indicates Davis’ mentality.” In reality, it’s much more likely that he considered membership in the CPUSA as a tool, because, according to “The New Red Negro”:
ONLY the Communist left had any significant institutional impact on African-American writing during the 1930s and 1940s. This support was crucial as the institutions that had maintained the New Negro Renaissance faded. And for better or for worse, the leading CPUSA functionaries involved in “Negro work” took a direct interest in African-American cultural production in a manner that was unusual, if not unique. Vilifying a writer for continuing to publish in CPUSA-supported publications, when they provided his only available institutional support, is completely unfair. Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, and Frank Marshall Davis all took advantage of this institutional support.
Further, as The New Red Negro makes clear, there was no monolithic Stalinist doctrine within the CPUSA: “This is not to say that the impact of the Communist Left on African-American writers in the 1930’s and 1940’s flowed from absolute unity of ideology and practical application of that ideology. As mentioned before, the CPUSA itself, despite the claims of both the party leadership and its most ardent detractors, contained various, often conflicting tendencies. This conflicts appeared within top leadership, where Earl Browder and William Z. Foster and their supporters were frequently at odds. They also surfaced in the regional leadership of important districts that were occasionally, and in the case of southern California frequently, in opposition to the national leadership. Finally, at the rank-and-file level, when leadership debates broke out into the open (as they did in 1929, 1956-1946, and 1956), the were replayed in almost every CPUSA unit, often serving as the vehicle for the expression of a wide range of “unorthodox” political beliefs (ranging from social democratic to anarcho-syndicalist.”
A huge proportion of African-American poets (and writers and intellectuals generally) remained engaged with the Communist Left and cultural institutions from at least the early 1930’s until at least the early 1950’s. With the partial exception of the period from the German invasion of the Soviet Union to the end of the Second World War, the CPUSA placed the issue of race and the fight against Jim Crow near the center of all its work.
The bottom line is that communist ties were the NORM for African American poets and civil right activists during that period. Such ties did not mean that they internalized Marxist values, much less Stalinist values, even if they were aware of the distinction. To them, the CPUSA provided safe harbor from the ravages of Jim Crow America.
“How can you deny he continued to be a fervent Marxist?” Simple. He was never a fervent Marxist. I should know. Frank Marshall Davis was my father.
Further, it is undeniable that the FBI considered Davis a Stalinist, isn’t it? According to them, he recruited for the Stalinized Communist Party and definitely ran in Communist circles. You didn’t usually ‘leave’ the Party in its Stalinist form unless you made a complete break like Whittaker Chambers did. (And if you start defending Alger Hiss, I’m going to tear out my remaining hair out!) If he never came out and said he rejected it, I’m not buying it.
I appreciate your clarification in your #18 post, Mark. I had read much of Edgar Tidwel’s comments on this when it surfaced almost a year ago. I never considered Frank Marshall Davis a “radical”. Actually never even thought of him as a Communist either. From what I read, I have always thought he was a socialist/Marxist…. a very different critter. And, as you point out, in that era, they felt safer in that fold.
But this is a different era from what your father knew, Mark Davis. I suggest that today, supporting that type of homogenous society via a socialist government would inhibit opportunities for all, regardless of race.
How ironic his idea of achieving “constitutional” freedoms for black America was not to implement civil rights legislation, but to apply a socialist agenda – “every one is equal” – instead. Socialism/Marxism, or Communism, does not lift up citizens. It lowers some, slightly raises others so that individuality becomes muddy, and excellence becomes out of favor, or prohibited and impossible.
And even more ironic that a Communist govt, assuming as a CPUSA member he would have been okay with that, would have probably made sure his poetry never made it to the masses.
Please provide evidence that the FBI considered him a Stalinist, or that he recruited for the Stalinized Communist Party. Once again, according to Kincaid’s expert Edgar Tidwell, “there is no evidence that he was a Stalinist”
Mr. DAVIS!
Wow. You got me there. A man and his father is a special thing. A lot more important than politics alone. Can you forgive me for any comments that may have offended you in your relationship? It’s not the last time I’ll put my foot in my mouth. And despite the heat of these discussions, I’m not one of those profane haters out there. Please say you forgive me.
Was the FBI thing just a case of unfair persecution? Was it only true during WWII or was it not true at all?
All that being said, what do YOU think of all the things listed? Why Ayers? Why 20 years with Wright? Do you support Obama without reservations? Did your father or do you support a socialist way of looking at things? Not trying to be confrontational or wise. I am genuinely curious. Maybe it would be a good thing if we talk not as “bloggers” but as human beings, realizing we are each special in our Maker’s eyes.
If you didn’t answer I wouldn’t blame you, but I really would appreciate it if you would.
Mark Lajoie
MataHarley wrote: How ironic his idea of achieving “constitutional” freedoms for black America was not to implement civil rights legislation, but to apply a socialist agenda – “every one is equal” – instead. Socialism/Marxism, or Communism, does not lift up citizens. It lowers some, slightly raises others so that individuality becomes muddy, and excellence becomes out of favor, or prohibited and impossible.
At that time the reality of Socialist governments was not really apparent. Many people joined the CPUSA without any idea of the atrocities that would befall citizens of communist regimes. It was the idealized utopia of communist doctrine that appealed to so many. Others joined the CPUSA without any regard for the Marxist agenda. It was merely a vehicle to get their writing published, because only the CPUSA provided such institutional support to African-American writers.
There was little hope of getting Civil Rights legislation passed during that period. Despite Equal Protection requirements, racial discrimination was legally enforced. Even the armed forces were not integrated until after WWII.
Agreed, Mark. Those that follow Communist or Marxist doctrines do so because it sounds so good… Your comment that there was little hope of gettin Civil Rights legislation passed during that period is correct. In your Dad’s 20’s (and my own father) America’s attentions were focused with the wars. The integration trends did not come until after.
Your father may not have been a young chicken, but certainly still a vital life when Civil Rights passed. So why did he remain socialist in his beliefs?
No apology is necessary. You reacted to information provided, as do we all. During the post WWII anti-communist hysteria, the FBI was just doing its job in investigating communists and their sympathizers, just as the FBI was doing its job in investigating radical Muslims after 9/11. Sometimes their leads reveal actual national-security risks, and sometimes they do not. They were overzealous in investigating my father, but “unfair persecution” may be overstating the situation.
The right-wing disinformation pursued by Accuracy In Media, on the other hand, IS unfair persecution. On my blog, I have outlined a litany of their “specific misrepresentation” regarding my father.
Until AIM started this disinformation campaign, I knew very little about Obama, so I am not qualified to comment on his qualifications. I knew quite a bit about disinformation campaigns, however, as I am a retired Air Force Intelligence Officer with specific training in Deception Analysis provided by the CIA. AIM should either tighten up its lies, or pick an easier target.
MataHarley asked “So why did he remain socialist in his beliefs?” (“Have you stopped beating your wife” is an equally loaded question.)
“Socialism” is too ambiguous a term to be thrown around so easily. In popular usage, “socialist” seems to mean whatever the speaker intends it to mean. My father never believed in “socialism” as defined by dictionary.com:
1. 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.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
He was more of a capitalist than a socialist. He ran his own businesses, including the sales of advertising specialties.
Mr. Davis,
Thank you for your service to our country! I am so grateful to you for some “old school” style discussion like this, too. I’ve just started ‘blogging’ and posting last month and I was rather appalled by the way some of these young ones talk and think. You seem to be a gentleman and a scholar.
The exaggerations about your father will be excised from this post and my blogs post-haste. I hope you can tell that deception is never my intention. Patriotism can be a wonderful virtue in the defense of family as well as country.
I hope you will look closely at the concerns I have about Barack Obama and consider my point of view. It seems to be a pretty crucial election for our country.
Maybe we can chat again! Blessings on you and yours.
Mark Lajoie
Thank YOU, sir, for your consideration! But I hope that you do not excise some of the more intemperate remarks that may have been posted, because their inclusion demonstrates how reasonable people of integrity can be when provided with balanced information.
LOL! It wasn’t meant as a loaded question, Mark. But a very funny retort. I’m going off Tidwell’s biographical comments on your father’s beliefs.
The definitions of socialism are something I’m quite familiar with. What I think most miss about using the parameters of these definitions is that the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole is just as easily achieved without the government taking title to a business or corporation.
Stripping a business of profits they consider “windfall” leaves a business owner little better off than being a non-profit, just breaking even. In that reality, who cares who’s name is on the title… the State or the individual who breaks even? It’s still “control of the means of production and distribution” for the community by redistributing the company’s profits.
Thus I suggest the dictionary versions tend to fool people into believing that nonsense such as windfall profit taxes cannot be equated to socialism. A rose by any other name.
If you say your father was a business owner, and would shun this type or proposal, then he was no socialist.. But then, as I’ve stated many times here, I place no particular emphasis on your father’s impressions on Obama. I look only at the finished adult he has become. And his policies, I believe, fall quite nicely into the socialist columns.
One last comment: I believe the logic of this post still remains completely intact. We, as Mr. & Mrs. Voter-Employer of Presidents, have plenty of reason to remember that old common-sense wisdom, “BUYER, BEWARE!” As employers, we’re just going to have to say: ‘I’m sorry, Barack, you don’t have enough experience and your references just don’t cut it. I think it would unfair to you as well as to our company to hire you…’
BTW, Mark Davis… since you are well spoken, I thought I’d read thru your blog. Tho I suspect we disagree on most political issues, it’s always good to read the viewpoints of others when well presented.
And do you have a blog other than your Kaleokualoha blog on Obama’s official campaign site?
I can understand you’d want to fight a dis *and* mis information campaign against your father. However why did you choose to do so under the official Obama campaign banner instead of the other free blogs available?
Also, with your profile stating you support Obama… and you obviously being a very thorough man… why would you respond to mlajoie2’s questions in #26 about BHO by saying Until AIM started this disinformation campaign, I knew very little about Obama, so I am not qualified to comment on his qualifications. Is it not somewhat disingenuous… or as you’d say disinformative… to represent yourself as “unqualified” to comment on Obama when you actually have stated unmitigated support for him, and use his blog community as your forum?
Call it healthy skepticism, but a grad of the CIA Deceptive Analysis Course with a blog on a campaign site, while simultaneously telling us you’re “unqualified” to comment on that candidate, gives me some pause for cause.
What about a Naval officer who made propaganda recordings for the enemy?
mlajoie2,
I will start by saying it heartened me to read the respectful exchange between yourself, Mata, and Mark Davis. Mr. Davis left me little to say about his father. Accordingly, I will restrict my comments to other parts of your post, except to say that being under the scrutiny of the FBI is no shame. One of our greatest Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King, had a very fat dossier.
Re: Liberation Theology being Marxist, not Christian
“There will be those who will claim that Liberation Theology is nothing more
than a baptized version of a Marxist revolutionary ideology. There is good
reason for this because some prominent Latin American theologians have
integrated Marxism with a theology of liberation and offered it up as
justification for the violent overthrow of what they considered to be evil
dictatorships. But it must be noted that most forms of Liberation Theology
have nothing to do with Marxism and violent revolutions.
Certainly, Jeremiah Wright is advocating neither Marxism nor violent
revolution. What Rev. Wright does say is that, as the African-American
community endeavors to establish itself as a people who are both equal with
whites and deserving of the dignity that God wills for all human beings,
they have God on their side.”
Author: Tony Campolo, professor emeritus at Eastern University, is the
founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an
organization that develops schools and social programs in various third
world countries and in cities across North America. He is the author of 35
books, his latest three being, “Letters to a Young Evangelical,” “The God of
Intimacy and Action” and his most recently release is “Red Letter
Christians, A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics.”
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/04/what_is_liberation_theology.html
Re: Saul Alinsky:
“When a wave of reform swept the American nation in the 1960s Alinsky again
commanded public attention. A critic of many of the decade’s young radicals
who spoke the language of violence, Alinsky instead called on reformers to
be more practical and to use the self-interest of ordinary citizens as the
primary force for increased political participation. “A guy has to be a
political idiot,” he told radicals, “to say all power comes out of the
barrel of a gun when the other side has the guns.” *For Alinsky, power came
from stable local organizations and political participation by aroused
citizens fighting for their rights.”* [I would take those to be American values not Communist values]
http://www.answers.com/topic/saul-alinsky
Alinsky took action with an organizing campaign in 1939 in Back of the
Yards, the desperate Chicago meatpacking district depicted in Upton
Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” Fashioning an unlikely alliance of unions, *the
Catholic church* [not exactly a Communist front organization] and others to
win concessions from industry and government, he said organizers must listen
to people’s desires, then find leaders to carry the fight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html
Speaking of his days of community organizing inspired by Saul Alinsky,
Barrack Obama said that it was in those neighborhoods “that I received the
best education I ever had, and where I learned the true meaning of *my
Christian faith*.” [You can take him at his word or not]
Saul Alinsky purportedly said “Anybody who tells you he was active in
progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds (Communists) is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things….”
Here’s the historical reality – in an America in which blacks couldn’t vote, were subject to Jim Crow laws and the Klan; and thugs were hired by companies to beat up union organizers trying to win a decent living for the working man,
Communists had a target-rich environment. They tried to exploit the
injustices of America and exploit those weaknesses to undermine our society.
In many cases, as Alinksky said, they did stand for the right things,
despite their subversive motives. It wasn’t largely Young Republicans who risked their lives on the backroads of the Deep South. It was more likely to be someone many on this blog would call a Red diaper baby. Regardless of their upbringing, I consider those men and women heroes.
Movements for social justice like the civil rights movement and Alinsky’s community organizations, whether knowingly or unknowingly, were often infiltrated by Communists. That does not tar those movements with the same Red brush as their infiltrators. Alinsky was just being brutally honest.
mlajoie2 – Please provide support for your assertion that Barrack Obama
“worked for” William Ayers for eight years
Also please support your assertion that Barrack Obama is “disingenuous” to claim that he and Ayers (about whom I agree with you) were just casual friends. In fact, he didn’t even say that. His campaign has said they were friendly (not friends) in the sense that they lived in the same neighborhood and
their kids went to the same schools. Any evidence of Bill and Bernadine
going over to the Obamas for drinks and dinner, or vice versa? And please don’t repeat the information about their sharing a foundation membership and sitting on the same dais. I am aware of that.
Dave Noble,
Someone has just hacked into my checking account and I’ve got to go take care of this NOW. You can dress up the Liberation Theology pig if you want to, but it’s certainly not a good thing. Yes they did go to each others’ houses and Obama launched his campaign there. Eight years…it’s out there…gotta go…
Whether Frank Davis would have admitted to being a communist or not is irrelevant.
The fact is that he was closely aligned with the same radical labor, class warfare, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist movements to which many communists in Hawaii belonged.
He shared many of their views and apparently passed those along to a young, impressionable Obama along with a good dose of the racial message that has become a classic in defining blacks as the victims. A message which Obama has repeated in his own writings.
I’d say that it is entirely fair to call Davis a “mentor” to Obama. He certainly seems to have had an impact on Obama’s intellectual development.
See this for more info:
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~takara/frank_marshall_davis.htm
MATAHARLEY WROTE: And do you have a blog other than your Kaleokualoha blog on Obama’s official campaign site?
RESPONSE: No. Fighting this disinformation has been my only experience in the blogosphere.
MATAHARLEY WROTE: I can understand you’d want to fight a dis *and* mis information campaign against your father. However why did you choose to do so under the official Obama campaign banner instead of the other free blogs available?
RESPONSE: Because this disinformation campaign is designed to attack Obama by exaggerating my father’s radical influence upon him. AIM is now characterizing their relationship as a “scandal” (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-scandal-is-bigger-than-edwards/), although (unlike Edwards’) their relationship involved no wrongdoing.
MATAHARLEY WROTE: Also, with your profile stating you support Obama… and you obviously being a very thorough man… why would you respond to mlajoie2’s questions in #26 about BHO by saying Until AIM started this disinformation campaign, I knew very little about Obama, so I am not qualified to comment on his qualifications. Is it not somewhat disingenuous… or as you’d say disinformative… to represent yourself as “unqualified” to comment on Obama when you actually have stated unmitigated support for him, and use his blog community as your forum?
Call it healthy skepticism, but a grad of the CIA Deceptive Analysis Course with a blog on a campaign site, while simultaneously telling us you’re “unqualified” to comment on that candidate, gives me some pause for cause.
RESPONSE: I posted that I am unqualified to comment on his qualifications, not unqualified to comment on him in general. I believe he is the better of the two candidates, based on his positions on major issues, although I believe that McCain is the best Republican of 2008.
I have a lot in common with Obama, including a bi-racial background, growing up in Hawaii, and respect for my father. I also agree with the Democratic platform more than the Republican platform, although my support of the 2d Amendment, rejection of racial preferences, support for a strong military and free trade, and other issues make me more of a moderate than a liberal. But I am concentrating on fighting the disinformation campaign, rather than getting tied up in other issues, because I am defending my family honor against a very well-funded and capable adversary.
MIKE’S AMERICA WROTE: “The fact is that he was closely aligned with the same radical labor, class warfare, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist movements to which many communists in Hawaii belonged. He shared many of their views and apparently passed those along to a young, impressionable Obama along with a good dose of the racial message that has become a classic in defining blacks as the victims. A message which Obama has repeated in his own writings. I’d say that it is entirely fair to call Davis a “mentor” to Obama. He certainly seems to have had an impact on Obama’s intellectual development.”
RESPONSE: Such claims of my father’s radical influence are epitomized by (Accuracy in Media) Cliff Kincaid’s malicious statement that “His values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin.” From Wikipedia’s entry on my father: “Claims of “decisive influence”, ‘mentor” and “father figure” are not supported by any facts or in Obama’s memoir.” Such claims, in the absence of confirmation from Obama himself, are speculation. They may be attributed to a “post hoc” fallacy:
[QUOTE]
“Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because (on account) of this”, is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy.
From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 131:
“ I can’t help but think that you are the cause of this problem; we never had any problem with the furnace until you moved into the apartment.” The manager of the apartment house, on no stated grounds other than the temporal priority of the new tenant’s occupancy, has assumed that the tenant’s presence has some causal relationship to the furnace’s becoming faulty. ”
From With Good Reason by S. Morris Engel, Fifth Edition p. 165:
“ More and more young people are attending high schools and colleges today than ever before. Yet there is more juvenile delinquency and more alienation among the young. This makes it clear that these young people are being corrupted by their education.
[END QUOTE]
– Wikipedia
There is a continuing discussion in various threads on the AIM website (http://www.aim.org) regarding my father as a “huge” influence on Obama. The “logic” proceeds from Obama’s writing that Frank advised him to go to college after he rejected his family’s advice. Therefore, Frank “convinced” him to go to college, despite Obama’s probable receipt of similar advice from hundreds of others at Punahou and elsewhere. Therefore, Frank was a “huge influence” on Obama. Therefore, “his values, passed on to Obama, were those of a communist agent who pledged allegiance to Stalin,” as the sophistry concludes. It would be amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that AIM disinformation is spread to thousands of other websites.
The claim that Obama/Ayers worked together for eight years comes from Larry Johnson that writes the No Quarter USA blog.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/
Steve Diamond, a law professor and political scientist at Santa Clara University School of Law has written extensively of the Obama/Ayers working relationship/friendship at
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/
Ayres co-founded the Annenberg Challenge around 1995 and hired Obama to head it up. Ayres received $49 million and worked with Obama to raise another $60 million. Obama’s office was located in the same building at the University where Ayers teaches. Obama also has a few of Ayres SDS colleagues currently working on his campaign.
BTW, Ayres has two adult children and raised another child(adult) whose parents were imprisoned for the SDS bombings. Obama’s children are both under 10.
Missy,
Thank you for your response.
I don’t believe hired is an accurate word in this context. It implies, as the original post explicitly states, that Obama “worked for” Ayers. In fact, they were co-chairs of the Annenberg challenge.
Co-chairs don’t work for one another.
http://globallabor.blogspot.com/
Even Larry Johnson fudges this by saying that they Obama “essentially” worked for Ayers.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/
It appears Obama and Ayers shared common goals, like school reform. At this point in his life unrepentant though Ayers may be, his goal is not to bomb government buildings.
Yawn.
Fr. Flager, Rev. Wright, Bernardine Dorhn and Bill Ayers are a better group of people to associate with than such as Charles Keating, Phil Gramm and Charlie Black.
And Saul Alinsky accomplished more good than all the above combined.
Alinski was an uniquely American Commie, but a Commie non the less.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=39595ECB-C0AD-4E37-A093-A2E510FE3A60
Here’s Hillarity’s thesis, if anyone is interrested. It is SOOOOOO 60’s!
http://www.freedomunderground.org/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf
______________________________________________________________
“…unrepentant though Ayers may be, his goal is not to bomb government buildings.” — Dave Gnoebbles
Right, because that would prevent him from his ongoing work of destroying America from the inside out. Like the Islamist 5th column, he’s working like a termite to erode the underpinings of our democracy, while poisoning the minds of those under his influence, with the willing help of toadies like Gnoebbels, Stoner and WitlessiDiot-40.
Face it, DEMOCRATS ARE TREASONOUS PARASITES
IN THEIR OWN WORDS
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/25/what-would-simon-wiensenthal-say/
Oh, yes, and we musn’t forget Prince Valium ….
“Yawn” — Stoner opined: (And I’ll pick my own role models, thank you. You can go back to sleep now, twinkle toes.)
Then arrest me and put me on trial, yonaskunk. I flippin’ triple-dog dare you.
Mark Davis,…
…just how much time did Obama spend with your father, if you don’t mind my asking?
“Then arrest me and put me on trial, yonaskunk. I flippin’ triple-dog dare you.” — WD-40
Nah, you do more to prove our point by leaving you free-range.
…besides, you guys are the oppressive ones.
hmmm, “….yonaskunk….?” Yes, I like the ring of that!
Yonason asked “just how much time did Obama spend with your father, if you don’t mind my asking?”
Gosh! I don’t know. Only two people could have had the answer to that question, and neither of them are talking . . .
So, he probably came by when you were little, or before you were born, I guess.