View Full Version : Obama Black Liberation Theology and Progressive Liberals(ala Marxists) go......

06-06-2009, 01:30 PM
hand in hand. Whether this article has been posted earlier or not, needs to be reviewed again. We are seeing Obama implement his intention for the destruction of the "private sector" economically(ala-capitalism) in America so that the "chickens can come home to roost"(as Jeremiah Wright puts it-' white private sector is gonna pay' ). This is what Obama means by 'Hope and Change'.

Progressive Liberals finally have found "their" charasmatic leader who happens to be 'black' who plays on America's white guilt subconsciously and playing to a significant portion of white America and minorities who are not well educated as to their own liberties and freedoms which are being 'snuffed out' right out from under them because they were not educated to think critically(Oprah crowd). The Oprah crowd say's to themselves, "in no way would Obama violate my freedoms and rights" he looks and sounds soooooooooo good! All the while never knowing how to sift through all the "platitudes"of speeches and seeing it for what it is. Think again!! With all these factors in play while running against a weak opponent this made it easy to get elected.

Now with both majorities in the both houses, Obama is barely contested on any bill he legislates, skating through his radical social agenda at breaking speeds we have never seen the likes of all because we dare "NOT" criticize our "First" black president and appear like racists. Obama and the Progressive Liberals know this and are daring anyone to oppose them only to brand them as 'racists' by the Obama's Marxist Press.

We will pay dearly for our silence if we do not stand up soon and the Tea Parties were a first step and a warning to Washington. This must continue.

This plays right into Obama's actual statement and vision of "returning America's wealth to it's rightful owners"(ala- white and minority deadbeats who don't even pay taxes) all for the sake of total government power(Obama control). Obama has no intention of fixing this economy rather he wants to drive it into the ground so as to create more crisis making more Americans more vulnerable to giving up their freedoms in hopes the government(ala-Obama) will save them.

The Majority Liberal Media(ala- now the communist press as I see it) will cover for him at all costs because they not only are indoctrinated progressive liberals themselves committed to socialism but they know they got this guy elected('hiding the real Obama') They refused to get Obama to define his real Hope and Change for our country) thus they must cover their own asses. Therefore, Obama will never be challenged and anybody who does challenge will be "slapped down and intimidated" by the Obama Marxist press". And Obama didn't know about Jeremiah's radical views while attending for over 20yrs? Yeeeeeeeeeeeah riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Like I said, all this goes hand in hand. Fits like a glove! By the way, this author of this article is black and pay particular attention to the last half of this article as you are seeing it implemented right before your very eyes. Understand this article was written way back in April of 2008.

I wonder how many Obama voters are starting to get the feeling they got "hoodwinked"???

Let's take back our country!

Enjoy the read

Acton Commentary
bringing moral reflection to bear upon current events
April 2, 2008
The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology
by Anthony B. Bradley Ph.D.

What is Black Liberation Theology anyway? Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright catapulted black liberation theology onto a national stage, when America discovered Trinity United Church of Christ. Understanding the background of the movement might give better clarity into Wright's recent vitriolic preaching. A clear definition of black theology was first given formulation in 1969 by the National Committee of Black Church Men in the midst of the civil-rights movement:

Black theology is a theology of black liberation. It seeks to plumb the black condition in the light of God's revelation in Jesus Christ, so that the black community can see that the gospel is commensurate with the achievements of black humanity. Black theology is a theology of 'blackness.' It is the affirmation of black humanity that emancipates black people from White racism, thus providing authentic freedom for both white and black people. It affirms the humanity of white people in that it says 'No' to the encroachment of white oppression.

In the 1960s, black churches began to focus their attention beyond helping blacks cope with national racial discrimination particularly in urban areas.

The notion of "blackness" is not merely a reference to skin color, but rather is a symbol of oppression that can be applied to all persons of color who have a history of oppression (except whites, of course). So in this sense, as Wright notes, "Jesus was a poor black man" because he lived in oppression at the hands of "rich white people." The overall emphasis of Black Liberation Theology is the black struggle for liberation from various forms of "white racism" and oppression.

James Cone, the chief architect of Black Liberation Theology in his book A Black Theology of Liberation (1970), develops black theology as a system. In this new formulation, Christian theology is a theology of liberation -- "a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the gospel, which is Jesus Christ," writes Cone. Black consciousness and the black experience of oppression orient black liberation theology -- i.e., one of victimization from white oppression.

One of the tasks of black theology, says Cone, is to analyze the nature of the gospel of Jesus Christ in light of the experience of oppressed blacks. For Cone, no theology is Christian theology unless it arises from oppressed communities and interprets Jesus' work as that of liberation. Christian theology is understood in terms of systemic and structural relationships between two main groups: victims (the oppressed) and victimizers (oppressors). In Cone's context, writing in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the great event of Christ's liberation was freeing African Americans from the centuries-old tyranny of white racism and white oppression.

American white theology, which Cone never clearly defines, is charged with having failed to help blacks in the struggle for liberation. Black theology exists because "white religionists" failed to relate the gospel of Jesus to the pain of being black in a white racist society.

For black theologians, white Americans do not have the ability to recognize the humanity in persons of color, blacks need their own theology to affirm their identity in terms of a reality that is anti-black -- “blackness” stands for all victims of white oppression. "White theology," when formed in isolation from the black experience, becomes a theology of white oppressors, serving as divine sanction from criminal acts committed against blacks. Cone argues that even those white theologians who try to connect theology to black suffering rarely utter a word that is relevant to the black experience in America. White theology is not Christian theology at all. There is but one guiding principle of black theology: an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God's liberating work in the world.

As such, black theology is a survival theology because it helps blacks navigate white dominance in American culture. In Cone's view, whites consider blacks animals, outside of the realm of humanity, and attempted to destroy black identity through racial assimilation and integration programs--as if blacks have no legitimate existence apart from whiteness. Black theology is the theological expression of a people deprived of social and political power. God is not the God of white religion but the God of black existence. In Cone's understanding, truth is not objective but subjective -- a personal experience of the Ultimate in the midst of degradation.

The echoes of Cone's theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain't never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not main stream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are burdened by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."

Black Liberation Theology as Marxist Victimology
Black Liberation Theology actually encourages a victim mentality among blacks. John McWhorters' book Losing the Race, will be helpful here. Victimology, says McWhorter, is the adoption of victimhood as the core of one's identity -- for example, like one who suffers through living in "a country and who lived in a culture controlled by rich white people." It is a subconscious, culturally inherited affirmation that life for blacks in America has been in the past and will be in the future a life of being victimized by the oppression of whites. In today's terms, it is the conviction that, 40 years after the Civil Rights Act, conditions for blacks have not substantially changed. As Wright intimates, for example, scores of black men regularly get passed over by cab drivers.

Reducing black identity to "victimhood" distorts the reality of true progress. For example, was Obama a victim of widespread racial oppression at the hand of "rich white people" before graduating from Columbia University, Harvard Law School magna cum laude, or after he acquired his estimated net worth of $1.3 million? How did "rich white people" keep Obama from succeeding? If Obama is the model of an oppressed black man, I want to be oppressed next! With my graduate school debt my net worth is literally negative $52,659.

The overall result, says McWhorter, is that "the remnants of discrimination hold an obsessive indignant fascination that allows only passing acknowledgement of any signs of progress." Jeremiah Wright, infused with victimology, wielded self-righteous indignation in the service of exposing the inadequacies Hilary Clinton's world of "rich white people." The perpetual creation of a racial identity born out of self-loathing and anxiety often spends more time inventing reasons to cry racism than working toward changing social mores, and often inhibits movement toward reconciliation and positive mobility.

McWhorter articulates three main objections to victimology: First, victimology condones weakness in failure. Victimology tacitly stamps approval on failure, lack of effort, and criminality. Behaviors and patterns that are self-destructive are often approved of as cultural or presented as unpreventable consequences from previous systemic patterns. Black Liberation theologians are clear on this point: "People are poor because they are victims of others," says Dr. Dwight Hopkins, a Black Liberation theologian teaching at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Second, victimology hampers progress because, from the outset, it focuses attention on obstacles. For example, in Black liberation Theology, the focus is on the impediment of black freedom in light of the Goliath of white racism.

Third, victimology keeps racism alive because many whites are constantly painted as racist with no evidence provided. Racism charges create a context for backlash and resentment fueling new attitudes among whites not previously held or articulated, and creates "separatism" -- a suspension of moral judgment in the name of racial solidarity. Does Jeremiah Wright foster separatism or racial unity and reconciliation?

For Black Liberation theologians, Sunday is uniquely tied to redefining their sense of being human within a context of marginalization. "Black people who have been humiliated and oppressed by the structures of White society six days of the week gather together each Sunday morning in order to experience another definition of their humanity," says James Cone in his book Speaking the Truth (1999).

Many black theologians believe that both racism and socio-economic oppression continue to augment the fragmentation between whites and blacks. Historically speaking, it makes sense that black theologians would struggle with conceptualizing social justice and the problem of evil as it relates to the history of colonialism and slavery in the Americas.

Is Black Liberation Theology helping? Wright's liberation theology has stirred up resentment, backlash, Obama defections, separatism, white guilt, caricature, and offense. Preaching to a congregation of middle-class blacks about their victim identity invites a distorted view of reality, fosters nihilism, and divides rather than unites.

Black Liberation Is Marxist Liberation
One of the pillars of Obama's home church, Trinity United Church of Christ, is "economic parity." On the website, Trinity claims that God is not pleased with "America's economic mal-distribution." Among all of controversial comments by Jeremiah Wright, the idea of massive wealth redistribution is the most alarming. The code language "economic parity" and references to "mal-distribution" is nothing more than channeling the twisted economic views of Karl Marx. Black Liberation theologians have explicitly stated a preference for Marxism as an ethical framework for the black church because Marxist thought is predicated on a system of oppressor class (whites) versus victim class (blacks).

Black Liberation theologians James Cone and Cornel West have worked diligently to embed Marxist thought into the black church since the 1970s. For Cone, Marxism best addressed remedies to the condition of blacks as victims of white oppression. In For My People, Cone explains that "the Christian faith does not possess in its nature the means for analyzing the structure of capitalism. Marxism as a tool of social analysis can disclose the gap between appearance and reality, and thereby help Christians to see how things really are."

In God of the Oppressed, Cone said that Marx's chief contribution is "his disclosure of the ideological character of bourgeois thought, indicating the connections between the 'ruling material force of society' and the 'ruling intellectual' force." Marx's thought is useful and attractive to Cone because it allows black theologians to critique racism in America on the basis of power and revolution.

For Cone, integrating Marx into black theology helps theologians see just how much social perceptions determine theological questions and conclusions. Moreover, these questions and answers are "largely a reflection of the material condition of a given society."

In 1979, Cornel West offered a critical integration of Marxism and black theology in his essay, "Black Theology and Marxist Thought" because of the shared human experience of oppressed peoples as victims. West sees a strong correlation between black theology and Marxist thought because "both focus on the plight of the exploited, oppressed and degraded peoples of the world, their relative powerlessness and possible empowerment." This common focus prompts West to call for "a serious dialogue between Black theologians and Marxist thinkers" -- a dialogue that centers on the possibility of "mutually arrived-at political action."

In his book Prophesy Deliverance, West believes that by working together, Marxists and black theologians can spearhead much-needed social change for those who are victims of oppression. He appreciates Marxism for its "notions of class struggle, social contradictions, historical specificity, and dialectical developments in history" that explain the role of power and wealth in bourgeois capitalist societies. A common perspective among Marxist thinkers is that bourgeois capitalism creates and perpetuates ruling-class domination -- which, for black theologians in America, means the domination and victimization of blacks by whites. America has been over run by "White racism within mainstream establishment churches and religious agencies," writes West.

Perhaps it is the Marxism imbedded in Obama's attendance at Trinity Church that should raise red flags. "Economic parity" and "distribution" language implies things like government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all, and the like. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign website reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers."

Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression. As the failed "War on Poverty" has exposed, the best way to keep the blacks perpetually enslaved to government as "daddy" is to preach victimology, Marxism, and to seduce blacks into thinking that upward mobility is someone else's responsibility in a free society.

Anthony B. Bradley is a research fellow at the Acton Institute, and assistant professor of theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis. His Ph.D. dissertation is titled, "Victimology in Black Liberation Theology."

06-06-2009, 07:45 PM
Thanks for posting that.

06-06-2009, 08:30 PM
Cornell West.


06-06-2009, 09:21 PM
Thanks for posting that.

You bet. People need to see this guy for who he really is and what he truly stands for. It's just a sad state of affairs when you see the "Majority of our Free Press" in the tank for this guy acting like the "Communist Press".

06-09-2009, 04:37 PM
Cornell West.


Thoroughly agree:thumb::thumb:

06-09-2009, 06:24 PM
Uh he is not black if anything he is Mulatto. I guess people see what they see. My concern is he seems to appear to be what makes him popular be it race or religion or whatever.

Thig Lyfe
06-09-2009, 06:57 PM
Uh he is not black if anything he is Mulatto. I guess people see what they see. My concern is he seems to appear to be what makes him popular be it race or religion or whatever.

Shhh, you're interrupting the circle jerk.

06-09-2009, 07:01 PM
Thanks for posting. My wife just asked tonite if I thought people were afraid to speak out against Obama because he is the first black president. My answer is yes. I feel like I should be doing something, but I am at a loss as to what. If anyone on the CP assembles an underground movement I am all in.

Thig Lyfe
06-09-2009, 07:05 PM
Thanks for posting. My wife just asked tonite if I thought people were afraid to speak out against Obama because he is the first black president. My answer is yes. I feel like I should be doing something, but I am at a loss as to what. If anyone on the CP assembles an underground movement I am all in.


06-09-2009, 07:57 PM
Not this one.

06-09-2009, 10:07 PM
Thanks for posting. My wife just asked tonite if I thought people were afraid to speak out against Obama because he is the first black president. My answer is yes. I feel like I should be doing something, but I am at a loss as to what. If anyone on the CP assembles an underground movement I am all in.

Tea parties July 4. :thumb:

06-09-2009, 10:33 PM
Uh he is not black if anything he is Mulatto. I guess people see what they see. My concern is he seems to appear to be what makes him popular be it race or religion or whatever.

Yes he is but see's himself more as an oppressed black man(at the hands of rich whites) than white based on his worldview and his policies that he is implementing. Do some research on Frank Marshall Davis who mentored Barry in Hawaii when he was a youth and then names like Alinsky,Jeremiah Wright, Ayers, ACORN and Rezco will all make sense.:thumb::thumb:

06-09-2009, 10:35 PM
Uh he is not black if anything he is Mulatto. I guess people see what they see. My concern is he seems to appear to be what makes him popular be it race or religion or whatever.

By the way, thank you for your son's service. I know you are a very proud father:thumb:

06-10-2009, 01:57 AM
Thanks for posting. My wife just asked tonite if I thought people were afraid to speak out against Obama because he is the first black president. My answer is yes. I feel like I should be doing something, but I am at a loss as to what. If anyone on the CP assembles an underground movement I am all in.

Jesus this is getting rediculous.

06-10-2009, 02:06 AM
I would like to assemble an underground movement to egg KcFanInGA's house while he is out at his underground movement meeting.

Ultra Peanut
06-10-2009, 03:59 AM
Edge's younger brother sez

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QEQOvyGbBtY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QEQOvyGbBtY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

The Mad Crapper
10-05-2010, 06:09 PM
October 5, 2010 6:30 P.M.
Obama’s Communist Mentor

When you write a book, particularly one that requires several years of research, you tend to encounter a bunch of unexpected information. Sometimes you find things that, if reported, will undoubtedly prompt partisans to demand you explain yourself. For me, this begins that process of explaining, given that one of the major characters in my new book on American Communists, Dupes, is Frank Marshall Davis.

Allegations regarding Davis’s Communism are sure to infuriate the Left because of the influence Davis once had over our president. He was a drinking buddy of Barack Obama’s maternal grandfather, Stanley Dunham, and spent time with young Obama. He turns up in the president’s memoir, Dreams from My Father, shrewdly identified only as “Frank”: “I was intrigued by old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes.” Recently, a U.S. Communist-party official confirmed the relationship, bragging in a speech of the Communist Davis’s formative influence over Obama. And yet when the allegations surfaced during the 2008 campaign, they went virtually unreported in the mainstream media.

After an almost four-year-long sojourn in which I tried to ascertain whether Davis was a progressive duped by Communists, or, conversely, a Communist who duped progressives, I determined the latter. No doubt, this conclusion — which means the leader of the free world was strongly influenced by a Marxist — will bring the unholy wrath of liberals. Yet, they should brace themselves for another kind of anger. Once they read what Davis did and wrote, they might redirect their rage. In truth, Davis’s targets were mainly Democrats, and especially a Democratic icon, Harry Truman. What Davis said about Truman was unbelievably outrageous. Worse, he said it because it was the Moscow line.

Since the early 1990s, I’ve been absorbed with archives from the Soviet and Communist world — I’ve looked at every kind of declassified holding. In recent years, I’ve concentrated on an extraordinary cache of material from the Comintern Archives on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). This material is utterly damning to the American Left, especially in its vindication of the worst fears and warnings of anti-Communists. Not surprisingly, our illustrious “scholars” in the academy are studiously ignoring it.

When I heard the accusations that Davis was both a Communist and a former mentor of Obama’s, I began noticing his name in documents, from House and Senate investigations to materials for hideous Communist fronts such as the American Peace Mobilization, a group that supported or opposed Hitler based entirely on whether he was signing non-aggression pacts with Stalin’s USSR or invading Stalin’s USSR. This group also unrelentingly demonized Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I learned that Davis served as an editor and writer for a Communist-line publication, the Chicago Star, in the 1930s. I next learned that the Midwest native had flown thousands of miles away to Hawaii to take up permanent residence, just when American Communists were looking to launch a publication there, namely the Honolulu Record. Subsequently, Davis wrote a weekly column for that publication.

With the help of two super-impressive researchers, including one living in Hawaii, I procured Davis’s weekly “Frank-ly Speaking” columns for the Record. These writings flawlessly parroted official Soviet propaganda and portrayed the likes of Harry Truman, George Marshall, and other courageous Democrats as colonialist-imperialist-fascist-racist monsters. Davis even denounced the Marshall Plan. As any student of this era knows, only the Soviet Union, via the public voices of Stalin and Molotov, took this absurd position.

In column after column, Davis claimed Truman craved not only a “third world war,” but to “rule Russia.” Davis said that Truman’s “fascism, American style” was motivated by an anti-Communism that was fueled by veiled racism. Davis repeatedly asserted that the Soviet Union not only desired peace — as Stalin seized Eastern Europe, while also killing tens of millions of his own people — but had abolished poverty, unemployment, and even racism.

Such examples from Davis are so voluminous that they constitute the longest chapter in my 600-plus-page book. Summarizing them here is impossible. But here are three telling examples.

In a Feb. 9, 1950, piece, Davis pushed the Communist line that framed Truman as the butcher of Hiroshima, a man who used the bomb not to end World War II and save lives — with Stalin’s enthusiastic support — but to try to take the world. “When we dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima,” wrote Davis, “we believed the world was ours. Having defeated the Axis powers on the battlefront, we were ready to show the Russians who was boss of this world.”

In a Jan. 26, 1950, column, titled “Free Enterprise or Socialism,” Davis painted a stark picture of an America on the verge of another Great Depression, the fault of a “virtual dictatorship of Big Business.” He concluded that in the face of “still rising unemployment and a mounting depression, the time draws nearer when we will have to decide to oust the monopolies and restore a competing system of free enterprise, or let the government own and operate our major industries.”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Davis’s May 18, 1950, article was a very important, albeit insidious, illustration of where Moscow stood on postwar Germany, and the unforgivable way American Communists followed in lockstep. The Bolsheviks had long wanted a “Sovietized” Germany, and the end of World War II, with Germany on the losing side and the USSR on the winning one, presented a golden opportunity. What stood in the way? America. Thus, the Communist party worldwide attacked American policy in West Germany. Here, too, the Soviets issued an unbelievable set of talking points, arguing that America wanted not a free West Germany but a revived Nazi Germany.

Ridiculous as this claim was, Davis characteristically saluted the red flag. “It is a known fact that many honest American officials have quit their posts in disgust over the way in which Western Germany is being handed back to the Nazis,” reported Davis. America’s policy of de-Nazification was a sham — “one of the big jokes of the 20th century.” It was, alleged Davis, the product of a racist-fascist-imperialist-capitalist conspiracy led by Democrats and Big Business: “The big industrialists who financed Hitler have been handed back their factories and the old school ties with Wall Street are almost as strong as they ever were.”

What kind of West Germany was America helping to its feet? According to Frank Marshall Davis, “It is the Germany of the master race theory. . . . The fascists we sought to exterminate in World War II as ‘the greatest threat to mankind the globe has ever known,’ are now our partners. . . . ‘What d’you say we kiss and make up?’”

Today, American politicians, including Barack Obama, travel to Berlin to make eloquent speeches about how the United States rightly stood beside Berliners in resisting the Soviet Union in those scary, early days of the Cold War. That wasn’t true for Frank Marshall Davis. Davis stood on the other side of the wall.

As someone who has long studied this period, I recognized Davis’s writing immediately as the crass propaganda pushed by Communists around the world at that time. Congress thought the same thing. Within only months of the appearance of these columns in the Honolulu Record, Davis’s name was appearing in investigations of the Communist movement. Eventually, in December 1956, he was called to testify before the U.S. Senate, where he pleaded the Fifth Amendment. In a Senate report in 1957 titled “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States,” Davis was plainly listed as “an identified member of the Communist Party.”

Later, even sympathetic biographers would discern the obvious. A 1999 book, The New Red Negro, by James Edward Smethurst, a professor at the University of Massachusetts who earned his Ph.D. at Harvard, concluded that Davis “was almost certainly a CPUSA member.”

More conclusive was John Edgar Tidwell, a University of Kansas professor and Davis biographer. “Sometime during the middle of [WWII], [Davis] joined the Communist Party,” Tidwell recorded. In the introduction to a 2002 volume of Davis’s writing he edited, Black Moods: Collected Poems, Tidwell produced a letter by Davis to a Kansas friend he was recruiting to CPUSA. Davis wrote: “I’ve never discussed this with you and don’t know whether you share the typical American uninformed concepts of Marxism or not, but I am risking such a reaction by saying that I have recently joined the Communist party.”

Later still, during the 2008 presidential campaign, further testimony on Davis’s party membership came from actual Communists themselves (I quote them in the book).

The real smoking gun, however, is Davis’s declassified 600-page FBI file, which was recently released through a freedom-of-information request by a fellow researcher. A cursory glance at these pages — which include accounts by informants and eyewitnesses — quickly reveals that Davis was a Communist. As evidence for readers, we have isolated and published about a dozen pages from the file in the appendix of my book, including one that lists Davis’s actual Communist-party number: 47544.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That number is consistent with those of the period. Consider the Communist-party numbers of some of the Hollywood Ten figures whom liberals laughably still defend as innocent lambs: John Howard Lawson (47275), Albert Maltz (47196), Alvah Bessie (46836).

In sum, a mentor of the current president of the United States was a Communist — and not only a party member, but an actual propagandist for Stalin’s USSR, a man who unceasingly demonized Democratic presidents and their policies and cherished ideals. Even in World War II, Davis was on the wrong side: He was flatly pro-Soviet and anti-American.

If you feel like you’ve been duped, or at least deprived of some significant background information about the man who is now the elected leader of the free world, you can thank our shameless, woefully biased media for failing to do its job.

– Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and the newly released Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.