In a Washington Post op-ed based on his new book, The Roots of Obama’s Rage, Dinesh D’Souza argues against the notion that Obama is a socialist. “Some have described the president as being a conventional liberal or even a socialist,” he writes in the Post . “But liberals and socialists are typically focused on poverty and social equality; Obama rarely addresses these issues, and when he does so, it is without passion.”
But D’Souza, president of The King’s College , a Christian institution, acknowledges that Obama’s signature legislation, introduced when he was a senator, was the Global Poverty Act, which argued for the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. to the rest of the world through the United Nations. He cites my research on this controversial piece of legislation in a footnote.
In order to collect the money, Marxists like Fidel Castro have long argued for a global tax. Obama endorsed  consideration of that approach at the recent U.N. meeting.
Yet D’Souza contends that the Global Poverty Act reflects the “anti-colonial paradigm” and not a Marxist view about transferring the wealth. He contends that “Anti-colonialism is the idea that the rich countries got rich by looting the poor countries…”
What D’Souza fails to grasp is that “anti-colonialism” was a tactic of the communists, in order to discredit the United States and other Western powers. Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party USA.
In the last known recorded interview with Davis, available at Washington University in St. Louis, he openly discusses his relationships with Paul Robeson and Harry Bridges, without of course disclosing their communist affiliations. He says he knew Bridges and Robeson and that Robeson urged him to go to Hawaii. In the interview Davis also ridicules one of the congressional committees that tried to get him under oath to discuss his involvement in the CPUSA. It had treated him as a “hostile” witness.
Since Davis is dead and Obama won’t speak the truth about him, Paul Kengor’s book Dupes  notes that one of the important issues is “defining” the Davis influence over Obama. It is clear, from Obama’s own book, that Davis functioned as a mentor in some regard. “I was intrigued by old Frank,” Obama wrote, “with his books and whiskey breath and hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.” He said Davis gave him advice on life and college.
All of this should have been reviewed by the FBI. But the loophole in our system is that a candidate for elected federal office, such as the presidency, can avoid a background check by law enforcement authorities. On the other hand, employees who work for the president are supposed to undergo background checks.
Former FBI agent Max Noel has said that the Bureau used to conduct background investigations by analyzing the factors enveloped under the acronym CARL—for Character, Associates, Reputation, and Loyalties.
How would Obama have fared under such scrutiny? On the matter of associates alone, the relationship with Frank Marshall Davis would have been a major red flag. Obama’s dealings with former communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn would also have surfaced in such an inquiry.
Whitewashing a Communist
However, D’Sousa goes astray here as well, contending that Obama viewed himself and Ayers as “anti-colonial warriors.” He asserts that Ayers opposed the Vietnam War because he viewed North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh as an anti-colonialist, not a communist. “For Ho and Bill,” D’Souza writes, “this was an anti-colonial struggle.” In fact, Ayers and Dohrn wrote a book dedicated in part to the assassin of anti-war candidate Robert F. Kennedy, demonstrating that their interest in Vietnam was not a withdrawal of U.S. forces and the termination of colonial influences but bringing the country—and the region—into the communist camp.
Ayers and Dohrn were not “anti-colonialists” but hard-core Communists who would come into Obama’s life in Chicago, after Obama had already been under the influence of Davis for eight years.
“Sure, there are radical elements associated with him [Obama],” D’Souza says, “but quite possibly they are his pawns.” This statement turns Obama’s life story on its head, implying that the communists involved in his life from his very early years are somehow his “dupes,” of a person they influenced or manipulated.
It bears repeating: a young Obama didn’t use Davis; Davis used him. That is why Obama covered up the relationship, referring to Davis as just “Frank” in his memoir, Dreams from My Father. The rest is history that continues to unfold before our eyes. It is not the story of someone being influenced by anti-colonialism but by a hard-core member of the CPUSA.
The advantage of accusing Obama of being an anti-colonialist, rather than Marxist, is that it enables D’Souza to avoid the sensitive question of whether Obama is loyal to the United States or subservient to a foreign and alien ideology that envisions the transformation of the U.S. into what the CPUSA openly called “Soviet America.” D’Souza writes defensively, “I am not suggesting that Obama is anti-American.”
But his defensive stance hasn’t spared him any criticism from pro-Obama advocates. It is as if Obama’s defenders want to attack this book so that the more substantial and accurate allegations, found in Kengor’s well-documented book, can be dismissed in advance.
The Kengor book provides the documentary evidence that the Obama Administration and the progressives cannot refute and which lays the groundwork for further investigation into the communist networks in Hawaii and Chicago that cultivated Obama and sponsored his political career. Trevor Loudon, who broke the Frank Marshall Davis story, is continuing to do some of this work through his KeyWiki  website.
Kengor’s recent article  on official CPUSA involvement in the October 2 “One Nation Working Together” rally functions as a postscript, alerting us to the ominous nature of the progressive-communist alliance that openly supports the Obama presidency. It is shocking that a political party that received Soviet funding and direction, and which committed espionage on behalf of the old Soviet Union, should be elevated to such status in an event that received the backing of Obama’s political organization and the giant labor federation, the AFL-CIO.
We covered the event , filming and documenting the involvement of the CPUSA and numerous other communist and socialist groups.
Is the FBI Watching?
Davis had been on the FBI’s “security index,” meaning that he was such a potentially dangerous individual that he could have been detained in the event of a national emergency. FBI agents who had monitored his activities suspected him of possible espionage, based on his extensive photographing of the Hawaiian coast. Hawaii was and is a strategic asset to the U.S.
Davis also used his camera for other purposes, as the archives at Washington University attest. Several of his photographs are of nude women. Davis had written a pornographic novel that described sexual practices, including pedophilia. That the novel was based, at least in part, on Davis’s own experiences, is also troubling.
Now, Davis’s student, Barack Obama, described by Kengor as Davis’s “star pupil,” occupies the oval office, where he is in charge of the national security apparatus and in possession of highly sensitive and classified intelligence information which, in the wrong hands, could threaten the survival of the United States.
But if former agents of the FBI recognize the danger, one must assume or hope that current officials in the bureau see it as well. It remains to be seen what they will do about it.