I met Rob Port yesterday. He writes one of my favorite blogs, Say Anything Blog.
It wasn’t long after that, I checked Memorandum and found he made a disturbing discovery on his tour of the White House:
Now, according out the person who guided our tour, the library is stock with books picked out by the First Lady, Michelle Obama. Being a bit of a bibliophile, I started to peruse some of the books on the shelves…and lookie, lookie what I found (click for a larger view):
By itself, this wouldn’t be that big of a deal. But in the context of Anita Dunn saying Chairman Mao is her favorite political philosopher? In the context of the Mao ornament on the White House Christmas tree?
In the context of Obama’s economic policies?
A few descriptions are of the books are in order. There were two reviews of The American Socialist Movement: 1897-1912:
Kipnis’ account of this growth and evolution of the Socialist Party offers interesting insights into the people who lead the party, as well as the challenges facing the contemporary socialist movement. Issues that plague the movement today, such as factionalism and opportunism, were also faced by the early socialists in the US. Anyone who is interested in building a revolutionary workers’ movement could gain a great deal from a reading of Kipnis’ account of the Socialist Party.
The American Socialist Movement 1897-1912 scrutinizes the rise and decline of the American Socialist Party, which at its height had more than a hundred and fifty thousand members and almost a million votes for its presidential candidate. A classic history first written in the mid-twentieth century, The American Socialist Movement 1987-1912 discusses socialist ideology in the early 1900′s, party propaganda, the influences of Christianity and immigration, attacks on constructive socialism, the repercussions of factionalism, the recall of Bill Haywood and much more. An extensively researched and documented account ideal for scholarly study and reference, and a welcome addition to college library and reference shelves.
There are other texts there that celebrate socialism.
So I wonder if the liberals who mock conservatives who refer to Obama as a socialist still find it funny? Or is it that they prefer a socialist in the White House and are using the Rules for Radicals to diminish the facts of the case, and those who make it? I imagine it’s the latter.
Turns out they’ve been there since 1963.