Barack Obama's Communist Connections

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Mr. Darby, Oct 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I don't agree in every detail with the point of view that this speaker represents, but the information given is very important for Americans.
    <iframe width="640" height="360" src="//" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
  2. If Obama's a communist, then he's not a very good one. He hasn't done anything that can be considered communist, and the economy under his term has gone the opposite of communism (hint: economic gains going mostly to the top 1% is the opposite of communism).
  3. I usually don't get too far into conspiracy theories, so I usually stay away from making claims that Obama's a communist. However, the subject is his connections to communism, which is true, and he was clear about it in his book Dreams From My Father. He mentioned his parents' closeness to Frank Davis, who was also his high school mentor.

    He also said how he would attend radical meetings in college made up mostly of socialists. Granted, socialism isn't the same as communism, but they're almost the same...the difference is one begins with the gun and the other ends with the gun.
  4. Relax, dude--you're with friends.

    I absolutely agree that Bush is responsible for much of the economic crises. With the bailouts, the wars, and the relentless programs, he caused tons of damage.

    Obama is worse for recognizing these problems in his presidential run and then pushing these same policies forward.

    Socialism--just like every govt policy--is initiated with force. One cannot choose to opt out, otherwise he is fined, arrested, or worse.

    I'm no stranger to this--I was a socialist once. not anymore. I believe in peace, sound money, and the dignity of all individuals. I don't believe people are disposable or a one-size-fits-all society. Government is a monopoly and degrades and victimizes individuals.

    And this isn't about partisanship--both major parties have proven to be the same; both pro-war and believe in ruling over people.
  5. I am curious of something -- and I'm not meaning to side track the discussion, but I noticed you're a Catholic, like me. Although you pointed out that you are a Social Democrat. Just out of curiosity, and I'm not asking this as a way of being facetious or to pry, but how do you unite Social Democratic views on a subject as blatantly wrong as abortion and also subscribe to Catholicism which rejects that?
    RosaVera likes this.
  6. May I offer contribution in regard to communism and socialism? Yet forgive me for being so threaded, and please know that I do deeply respect you as my fellow family member in the kingdom of God, and am exceeding glad to exchange here in this great forum.

    Can we agree that the proto-socialist movement that first originated in schools of thought came from France and England, which later provided the foundation for communism in the Marxian/Engel tradition, where at first it seeks to socialistically become a highly anarchical collectivist campaign, but then will always mutate to authoritarian ends being interrupted by authoritarian collectivism? Though anarcho-collectivism is the Marxian goal by the modern communist most oft, can we understand the primordial nature of Satan described in scripture, where the despotic nature that resides in lustful throes for power, then contained by lustful men will not fall to the Marxian benevolent whims to dissolve of the state, but instead will crush a nation with each opportunity as we have witnessed across many nations in the last century.

    Shall the proto- and modern socialistic logic say for two hundred years, “We need ambiguous authority to remove ambiguous authority, yet it’s a contradiction which dissolves to despotic authority. Can we reference a plethora of historic examples where it simply evolves to mature despotic authority that would overrun society with despotism in the repeated historic legacy of the likes of Stalin and Hitler? Shall socialism move both in its beginnings from dead center (not left nor right) but with a central pragmatic notion to fix something ambiguous, and then mutate to both political logistical sides unto more authority, to the exampled right wing authoritarianism in Germany under Hitler and the exampled left wing authoritarianism is Russia under Stalin. Shall 60 million die on the right and 40 million die on the left when authoritarianism matures just with these.

    Can we agree that socialism to be lawful pragmatism, where compromise in the law moves the throes of ambiguous compulsory law to rescue society on the grounds of ambiguous morality, fairness and safety? Can we agree that we have 40,000 new ambiguous compulsory laws just this year alone (2013)? Shall the laws passed upon this ambiguous foundation then cause insurmountable authoritarian gains, which in turn will leverage legal-plunder, egregious economic intervention, uncontrollable debt, and compulsory expropriation till all liberty of the individual is lost. Then shall the mighty despot do his hideous work to steal, kill and destroy ruthlessly, where no liberty can repel. Yet I believe we as the church will stand together to repel despotism before that time using a simple peaceful vote in one accord, yet can we escape the economic woes that are coming quickly?

    Thus I offer this perspective with kind suggestion: that socialism is the pragmatic premise of compromise where the law rescues falsely unto a transfer of power giving all authority to a controlling few, and where liberty of the individual dissipates to a point where individuals can no longer defend their right to be free, prosper, or worship Christ. Then if a country leans right with this socialism on the rise then fascism devours, yet if the country leans left with the same socialism then communism devours. For authoritarianism is the end on either side going up where political authoritarianism creates demi-gods crushing humanity, seeking to be worshiped. Shall this be a process of a transfer of power, and shall our process in America start in the late 1800’s where scrupulous men finally figured out ways to overcome the many restraints in our constitution, and centralize power over our monetary system and create much ambiguous compulsory law to route society. Shall it now become deadly to our liberty.

    However to your wise assertions regarding abstract behavior in government, they are indeed at times highly flawed, and even from the beginning even till this day. For how slaves and women were horrifically treated as many in our country would not stand on the virtuous foundation of our bill of rights and the non-aggression principle giving all people equality with individual liberty. For slavery and terrible treatment of women is a hideous scar on our classical liberal tradition.

    Also shall our founders be in high disagreement regarding monetary policy enabling even from the beginning a Hamiltonian styled compulsory central bank strategy to take root, only to fail twice before the socialistic Wilson succeeded in creating monetary calamity. Shall all Americans, who once had the God given inalienable right to engage in voluntary exchange, then instantly be cut off with a few strikes of the pen, which created a new legacy of plunder till this day. Shall your astute accusation of large banks be a powerful and valid point for our most dreadful financial state, as they use an immoral premise to do business with economic interventionist advantage without our consent, controlling almost every aspect of our financial lives.

    Shall we agree on some things but disagree on others? Please forgive me, as I am often guilty of too much information in a post.
  7. It is unimportant anyway whether he is the same Communist or "just" has contacts to Communists. The main thing is as he is as a politician. And most have problems on Barak Obama because of the NSA affair in Germany. And in the US of A?
  8. That is exactly what i always ask ... how anyone can be a Christian, a Catholic, and vote for someone like Obama...? how do they justify their vote and still call themselves followers of Christ...?
  9. Yeah, Jesus Christ definitely would have voted for the Mormon millionaire. ;)
  10. I can't imagine that Our Lord has approved of ANY of the political candidates we've had in the last 50 years.
    Can we not find any person willing to hold public office that is not a murderer, thief, elitist, pervert, or idiot? (or combination of the 5)
    LysanderShapiro likes this.
  11. I agree with Glo.
  12. I don't think he would as Romney supported war and abortion among other things. I'm only asking about your perspective on reconciling Liberalism with Christianity. I'm not meaning to bother or offend. Don't feel obligated in answering.

  13. Soooo... you voted for Obama and you voted for all the mess and the anti-Christian agenda, actually anti-Catholic agenda that he is purposely forwarding ... so you purposely voted for the worse abortion president ever... so you voted for the Obamacare debacle which they are forcibly unleashing unto all of us but not for them...

    At least the Mormon, with your sly comment, would have been a much better president than this fraud we have today. i am sure you will unleash a whole tirade of defense for this make believe 'presidente '...
  14. Let's not attack her. She has the freedom to choose who she wants to vote for. I wasn't meaning to ask her in regards to who she voted for, I was meaning to ask her where she reconciles the non-Christian aspects of Liberalism with her own faith.

    I wouldn't encourage any sort of bickering.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page