YAMWV (Yet Another Must-Watch Video): Obama's Radical Ties

[King 5.45]

I cannot believe that this guy will be on anyone's ballot.

http://americanissuesproject.org/

[manyplews]

Yes,Barack has been buddies with long-time radicals and communists like Saul Alinsky,Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dorn(of the bomb-setting Weather Underground),Frank Marshall,etc. for many years.
His campaign slogans of "Change" and "Hope" came from these subversives.
In fact,when he first went to Chicago,after graduating from Harvard,they trained him in "community organizing tactics".
For an elitist whose father had political influence and some wealth in Kenya,an abandoned kid whose grandparents scrimped and saved to send him to the most expensive private high school in Hawaii,and a "lucky" kid to get a Harvard Law School appointment and scholarship - I sure don't know how he comes across as Savior to the poor.

[ChamberedRound]

Interesting read, although admittedly is does come from what is considered a biased source (freerepublic.com):

Obama's Propagandistic Iconography
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2034833/posts

I won't post the entire article here, but the parallels between some of Obama's campaign posters and those of former socialist/communist leaders is IMHO a bit scary:

[Eugene V. Debs]

These are the worst criticisms of Obama I hear. Anyone who really believes Obama is going to be pushing a radical socialist or Black nationalist agenda is off their rocker. Obama is as much in the pockets of the big corporations as McCain. Obama is going to be pushing the same damn agenda as every other Republican and Democratic candidate as far back as I can remember-- an expansion of government powers in the interests of the imperial plutocracy.

Voting for President nowadays is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The same class of people will continue to control things, the same trends will continue, we just get a very narrow choice of candidates who have the same general aganda but differ on a few "hot-button" topics. That's it. You're picking the Emperor, but democratic decision-making? Forget about it-- none of these politicians give a fuck about you or me once they've got our votes.

[King 5.45]

Black nationalism, no, although he's no doubt made a few head fakes in that direction to beguile those types.

I do, though, expect him to act in a purely inimical fashion towards 2A, in concert with Delaware Joe, even if this is the only plank of a radical-leaning platform along which he cares to advance upon individual liberties.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by King 5.45

Black nationalism, no, although he's no doubt made a few head fakes in that direction to beguile those types.

I do, though, expect him to act in a purely inimical fashion towards 2A, in concert with Delaware Joe, even if this is the only plank of a radical-leaning platform along which he cares to advance upon individual liberties.

Well, you'll get no argument from me that Obama is anti-2a, but how is this a "plank of a radical-leaning platform"? I'm pretty familiar with the history of the Weather Underground and I don't recall them ever calling for gun control. Thw WU was also sympathetic to the Black Panther Party who were fervent defenders of the Second Amendment.

In fact, the only "radical" socialist organization I'm aware of (in the U.S.) that explicitly favors gun control is the CPUSA. But then again the CPUSA long ago ceased to be radical and currently acts as an uncritical adjunct to the Democratic Party. Most other Communists don't even consider the CPUSA to be socialist anymore, but rather a left-wing reformist capitalist group, much like the Social Democrats in Europe.

Now its true that the USSR and other Communist countries enacted gun control, but I think that has more to do with governments generally being authoritarian and wanting a monopoly on firearms than it has to do with any intrinsic left-wing ideological program plank. Governments in general, whether capitalist or socialist-leaning, trend towards expanding and consolidating power at the expense of the people, which is why the founders of this country advocated for limited, decentralized government. And it worked for a while (at least for white males) until an unprecedented amount of wealth started to aggregate in the hands of a few, which then sought to expand government to advantage themselves. At least that's the way I look at it.