What does it prove?

1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced “development plan”, an important element of his attack on the government’s advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)

2. Obama advocated the nationalization of “European” and “Asian” owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the “indigenous” black population. (pp. 32 -33)

3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on “the rich” even up to the 100% level, arguing that, “there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay” (p. 30) and that, “Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.” (p. 31)

Unless socialism is hereditary and/or the biographical details about Obama are all wrong and his father had some huge influence on him growing up, there’s nothing here except a few boilerplate quotes in his autobiography about being an idealist like his pops was. I don’t even like holding people to what they wrote in their own college theses; now we have to worry about congenital bolshevism? There’s plenty of material to suggest Obama himself is hard left without weakening the argument by holding him responsible for his father’s views. What am I missing here?