Obama communist? Yes, says researcher

Trevor Loudon, now on lecture circuit against the Obama communist agenda
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Is Barack Obama communist? A political researcher from New Zealand so suggests. Not only that, but Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line of US officials pursuing communist policies. And they are doing it on orders, however indirect, from Russia. A Russia that never changed its goals, even after it lost the outward communist structure.

Obama communist ties

Trevor Loudon writes the New Zeal blog. He also speaks to Tea Party and other conservative groups across America. Last night (October 10) he spoke to The Morristown Tea Party (Morristown, NJ) to describe what a second Obama term would look like.

He told his Tea Party listeners that some person or persons, among many who knew Barack Obama, picked him out when he was young to groom him for high office. He mentioned Frank Marshall Davis more than any other man. Why? Because Frank Marshall Davis (1905-1987) was a communist activist and propagandist. And when Barack Obama, alias Barry Soetoro, came back to America from Indonesia, Davis became his mentor. Indeed Obama (or William Ayers) mentioned Davis in the memoir that came out under Obama’s by-line, Dreams from my Father. Davis is the “Frank” in that book. Loudon discovered that nugget in February of 2008.

(CNAV asked Loudon, after the talk, about the claim that Frank Marshall Davis is Obama’s real father. Loudon said that claim is 60 percent likely, not strong enough for him to stand by it.)

Loudon talked to the Tea Party group for nearly an hour. In that time he named a long list of names. They included William Ayers and his father Tom, and Stanley Dunham, father of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother. They also included many players in the “Chicago Communist machine.” That group became famous for beating the successors to the late Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago. (“Marxist Democrats against gangster Democrats,” Loudon said.) Loudon named two key names in the Obama administration:

  • Valerie Jarrett, now his closest adviser (closer even than his wife Michelle)
  • Leon Panetta, now Secretary of Defense

So the Obama communist claim has one key support: many Marxists and communists surrounded him to train him for that role.

Obama communist agenda

Trevor Loudon, now on lecture circuit against the Obama communist agenda

Trevor Loudon. Photo: self-portrait released into public domain.

Loudon spent as much time talking about the Obama communist agenda as the Obama communist ties. That agenda, says Loudon, did not start with Obama. It started in communist Russia.

Which, Loudon took care to show, never really went away. The structure of communist Russia, or something called “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,” died in 1990. But the same crew who ran it, are still in charge. (As others have noted.) The key man: Vladimir Putin, whom Dmitri Medvedev mentioned to Obama in their “open mike moment.”

In the days of the old Soviet Union, the Committee for State Security (Komitet Gosudartvennoye Bezopasnosti, or KGB) kept a school in Moscow for communist activists worldwide. The KGB never dared train an American citizen in this school—because, says Loudon,

Ronald Reagan essentially told them that if they ever trained an American citizen in that school, that would mean war.

So the KGB trained Canadian, Mexican, and other activists and sent them to train Americans. And some of these former KGB students trained Frank Marshall Davis and other activists who later had contact with Obama. That, then, is where the Obama communist agenda comes from.

More important than the means of such training is what the Russians wanted these activists to do.

The US military is now, and always has been, the one thing that can stop Russia from doing what it wants to do.

The goal: destroy the US military. Hence the cuts in the military budget, even apart from the “sequester” part of the debt ceiling deal. Does Leon Panetta protest too much? Loudon reminded everyone that Panetta’s leftist, anti-military record alone should have disqualified him from the job he now holds. (He also said that keeping Robert Gates on, and including “conservatives” in his administration, were blinds. And when leftists screamed about those appointments, a fellow activist literally sent a memo out to them to tell them they were blinds.)

But that could also mean making America unable to support a military that can fight effectively around the world. Hence the drive to socialize medicine and to make people dependent, not productive. But Loudon mentioned another motive: to make otherwise conservative rank-and-file citizens support a leftist or communist agenda. Why? Because now they depend on it. It happened in Great Britain, and the Obama communist agenda includes making it happen in America. (So when Mitt Romney told some of his biggest donors that 47 percent of the people might not vote for him, his mistake was only in the proportion, not the motive.)

Hope for America?

But Loudon finished his speech with a pep talk.

In 2008, the leftists had all the marbles. They had a President who believed in their agenda, and both Houses of Congress. But in 2009, a miracle happened: you[, the Tea Party]. You stopped the [Obama communist] agenda stone cold dead.

Loudon’s message: keep working, and above all vote. The Election of 2012, he says, is critical. It is the last chance to stop the Obama communist agenda.

You are the last hope, not only for your country, but for mine.

Not the only one

Trevor Loudon is not the only one who suspects or suggests an Obama communist agenda. Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric, cried vindication yesterday after a flap over the latest unemployment statistic. But the metaphor he used was most telling:

Imagine a country where challenging the ruling authorities—questioning, say, a piece of data released by central headquarters—would result in mobs of administration sympathizers claiming you should feel “embarrassed” and labeling you a fool, or worse.

Soviet Russia perhaps? Communist China? Nope, that would be the United States right now, when a person (like me, for instance) suggests that a certain government datum (like the September unemployment rate of 7.8%) doesn’t make sense.

Unfortunately for those who would like me to pipe down, the 7.8% unemployment figure released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) last week is downright implausible. And that’s why I made a stink about it.

Soviet Russia. Communist China. Though Russia does not call itself Soviet anymore, Russia and China have a new alliance, the Eurasian Triple Alliance. The third member: Iran. Loudon called this “the new Warsaw Pact.”

They hate each other, but they hate you [America] worse.

The point is not merely an Obama communist agenda, but a long-range communist agenda that Obama has pledged to put forward.

]

Editor-in-chief at | + posts

Terry A. Hurlbut has been a student of politics, philosophy, and science for more than 35 years. He is a graduate of Yale College and has served as a physician-level laboratory administrator in a 250-bed community hospital. He also is a serious student of the Bible, is conversant in its two primary original languages, and has followed the creation-science movement closely since 1993.

5 Responses to Obama communist? Yes, says researcher

  1. JT says:

    You do realise that Obama’s policies to date would make him a staunch member of the UK’s Conservative Party right?

    Clearly you don’t understand the meaning of the word communist. Then again, give that Loudon’s blog also spends a great deal of time linking people he doesn’t like to communism, maybe the fault lies with him, and you just didn’t vet him properly.

    In addition, there’s one conspiracy theory you haven’t rolled out yet. http://www.ufodigest.com/article/mars-visitors-basiago-and-stillings-confirm-barack-obama-traveled-mars

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      I don’t accept your evaluation of the UK Conservative Party. Even if I did, I apply my own standards, and Trevor Loudon applies his.

      And for the benefit of all readers: CNAV’s official position on “unidentified flying objects” is: if Mars harbored any extraterrestrial scouts, or any extraterrestrial civilization, the Mars rover Curiosity would never have made it down. In logic, such scouts, or the defenders of such civilization, would have shot it down.

      • Fergus Mason says:

        “I don’t accept your evaluation of the UK Conservative Party.”

        Feel free to accept mine then; both my parents are long-standing members, both are well known in their local association for being solidly on the right wing of the party and both of them prefer Obama to Romney. I’m not going to say they prefer Obama to, say, Margaret Thatcher, because they very emphatically don’t, but anywhere in the developed world apart from the USA Obama would be classed as centre-right. Romney, on the other hand, would be utterly unelectable.

        “if Mars harbored any extraterrestrial scouts, or any extraterrestrial civilization, the Mars rover Curiosity would never have made it down.”

        Very true. Also very irrelevant. We know that Mars doesn’t harbour any civilisations. We’ve known that for a rather long time, because it’s the nearest planet to us that can actually be observed with a decent sized telescope.

        The key thing about Mars, however, is that it isn’t the only other planet in the universe. In fact there are billions of them. If Earth is being visited by aliens there’s no reason to suspect they come from Mars.

        As it happens I believe that unidentified flying objects are just that – unidentified flying objects. I am very confident that, given the scale of the universe, life exists in many other places; I think it’s likely that life exists within our solar system, probably on Europa. Mars itself may have had – and may even still have – simple life. However I do not believe that aliens are visiting us and I think it would be very obvious if they did.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          The main reason why I don’t accept extra-systemic visitation is the equation t = t0/sqrt(1 – v2/c2). Such a visit would therefore depend not only on the development of a civilization beyond the earth, but also the development by that civilization of a new drive for a spacecraft that involves a controlled space warp. Last I heard, it would take a mass the size of a Mariner or Voyager spacecraft to send a small (un-crewed) probe at a speed perhaps ten times that of light. The tremendous distances involved would require a far greater speed than that. And such a vessel would have to be visible. It would be at least as large as any of a number of asteroids or Kuiper Belt objects.

          The presence of microbes (probably extremophiles) on Mars, and even a slightly more sophisticated ecology on Europa, is entirely consistent with Walt Brown’s hydroplate flood model. So such a finding would give me no pause. (I’ve spoken to Dr. Brown about Europa. He told me he firmly believes that Europa does have a thin icy crust, with water beneath. I’m sure he would be as excited as anyone by a project to inject a small robotic submarine into that ocean through a missile designed to pierce the ice.)

          As to world opinion on Romney: well, the same type of people considered Ronald W. Reagan “utterly unelectable.” He was not only elected; he was instrumental in weakening the structure of the Union of Soviet Socialst Republics so that its utter collapse became inevitable.

          As to Obama being “centre-right”: well, Trevor Loudon would love the opportunity to set you straight on that one.

  2. Fergus Mason says:

    “but also the development by that civilization of a new drive for a spacecraft that involves a controlled space warp.”

    Or a generation ship.

    However, my personal opinion is that the universe is just so damn big we’ll never meet any of its other inhabitants.

    “The presence of microbes (probably extremophiles) on Mars, and even a slightly more sophisticated ecology on Europa, is entirely consistent with Walt Brown’s hydroplate flood model.”

    Well sure, at least for certain values of “consistent.”

    “As to world opinion on Romney: well, the same type of people considered Ronald W. Reagan “utterly unelectable.””

    Not at all. Reagan was strongly supported by the British Conservative Party, the German CDU and the French Gaullists, among others. However none of those parties want anything to do with Romney. That’s because Romney isn’t a tenth of the man Reagan was, and neither were any of the other GOP candidates.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.