WorldNetDaily
Posted 24 October 2008
12:50 am
ELECTION 2008
Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.
Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.
But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.
The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.
"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.
But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."
The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."
Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."
# # #
Once again, we have proof that Barack Obama was, and still is, a socialist. Although I don't think anyone in America is being brave enough to call him what he really is . . . his policies and agendas are distinctly communist. Really, am I the only one brave enough to call it as it is?
The likes of Hamas and Louis Farrakahn have endorsed Barack Hussein Obama. And now Iran:
Iranian Speaker: Iran Prefers Obama as President
Talk about sleeping with the enemy.
America only has one recourse: Vote for John McCain/Sarah Palin on November 4th.
Note: If you love Sarah Palin, her policies, her stances and her love of America then join me on Team Sarah where those who love America as I do energize and support one another in our goal to take America back from those who hate her or find the Constitution wholly inadequate because it didn't, as Barack Obama put it in 2001, "go far enough on the redistribution of wealth."
Posted 24 October 2008
12:50 am
ELECTION 2008
Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership
By Aaron Klein
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
Excerpt from New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
JERUSALEM – Evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.
Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.
But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him.
The party's Spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.
"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.
But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."
The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."
Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists for America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.
According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.
In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.
"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."
# # #
Once again, we have proof that Barack Obama was, and still is, a socialist. Although I don't think anyone in America is being brave enough to call him what he really is . . . his policies and agendas are distinctly communist. Really, am I the only one brave enough to call it as it is?
The likes of Hamas and Louis Farrakahn have endorsed Barack Hussein Obama. And now Iran:
Iranian Speaker: Iran Prefers Obama as President
Talk about sleeping with the enemy.
America only has one recourse: Vote for John McCain/Sarah Palin on November 4th.
Note: If you love Sarah Palin, her policies, her stances and her love of America then join me on Team Sarah where those who love America as I do energize and support one another in our goal to take America back from those who hate her or find the Constitution wholly inadequate because it didn't, as Barack Obama put it in 2001, "go far enough on the redistribution of wealth."
Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Rating:
Reviewed by Unknown
on
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Rating:
If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:
ReplyDelete1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.
Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.
Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.
So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.
Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?
Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.
What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.
So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?
Now for those of you who blame President Bush for everything, consider this: George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high.
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon.
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, and living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!
So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.
In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted.
2) Gasoline went over $4 a gallon and was climbing, until the stock market crashed.
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase).
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping.
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6) As I write, THE DOW is probing another low~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT! ...
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE ALONG WITH A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
I hate to disappoint you, but the was nothing 'socialist' about the New Party. It was a small 'd' democratic pragmatist party for a small package of reforms like and increase in the minimum wage, equitable school funding, and cleaning up garbage dumps in poor neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteA few socialists like myself were members, but 90 percent of the members were low-come Blacks.
(To some on the right, that's even scarier than socialism!)
We weren't even on the ballot in Chicago. We wanted to be able to run fusion tickets, like they do in New York, but weren't allowed. We fought for the right, but lost.
We endorsed Obama because his views on the living wage ordinance matched our own; but he ran unopposed, and didn't need us all that much. He came to a meeting and thanked us anyway, gracious liberal that he is. If you're looking for a big 'Red Plot' here, look all you want, but there's no 'there' there.
But keep looking. It'll keep you out of mischief elsewhere, until a few days from now, when most likely you'll have something new to call Obama--'Mr. President...'
Carl,
ReplyDeleteYou claim you are a socialist. The newspaper article claimed Obama was a member of your party. I guess I could take your word over the newspaper articles reporting on the election . . .
So let's look at it another way. Barack Obama is a socialist, oh let's be honest, Obama shot past socialism and straight into communism many years ago. Everything that man states makes that clear. Oh, I'm not talking about his campaign rhetoric in the last 8 weeks, I'm talking about everything he has written and said over the 20 plus years. People like you may believe socialism or communism is good, but it is a cancer which eats at the fabric of society and there is no nation on this earth who has practiced communism successfully, had a happy people and governed in a moral and just manner. Socialism and communism DO NOT WORK! They never have.
This nation was founded on the principles of democracy and delivered through a Republic vehicle. If you don't like it, then get the hell out. Quit trying to change our country into a corrupted shadows of what it once was. There are those of us who love this country and are fighting like mad to keep it as Reagan's "shining city on a hill."
And call that treasonous bastard, Obama, Mr. President? Never gonna happen. Those words will never fall from my lips.
Oh yeah, one more thing. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, then it's a duck.
ReplyDeleteYou said that there were some of you who were socialists, so I'm assuming you were attempting to push those socialist tents. Just because some of the people who joined were poor, doesn't mean they didn't agree with you. Just means if they didn't recognize socialism when they saw it they need to get some education.
Yes, I'm a socialist, have been for decades and I never hide it and am quite proud to be one.
ReplyDeleteI'm a longtime admirer of Karl Marx, the 'Old Mole,' and still learn new things from re-studying him. Even the Wall Street Journal crowd are taking another look these days trying to figure out what's happening when you de-regulate speculative capital. Short answer: you make a big mess.
But neither the vast majority of the New Party's members, nor its leaders, nor its platform or ideology, was ever socialist.
Socialism has to do with the ownership and control of the means of production by the working class, from local coops to major institutions. Politically, it has to do with a predominance of working-class parties in government.
Obama is for neither of these. He's a high-road, green industrial policy capitalist and a multipolar globalist. That means he's less of a danger to the working class and its allies than the unreconstructed neoliberals like McCain, but that hardly makes him a socialist.
There is no majority for real socialism in the US today, but if Obama does well, and you folks keep tagging him this way, who knows? Maybe you'll help us get more and more folks looking into the real thing.
I've never heard such a load of garbage in my life. Oh in theory, it sounds great but socialism DOES NOT WORK. If you like socialism so much MOVE! Get the hell out of America. We do not want or need socialists here. Socialism kills entrepreneurship. Socialism kills hope. Socialism kills dreams. Socialism kills excellence. It leaves behind people who want to emigrate to a better life in America. This is a democracy delivered through the vehicle of a republic. It always has been and people like you are never going to change it.
ReplyDeleteBarack Obama is a devotee of Karl Marx. He buys into that crap that has destroyed civilizations throughout time. People like you will never get it, but Obama, whether you can recognize it or not, is a socialist . . . or not, you're right, he's not a socialist, he's a godforsaken communist.
I invite you to not return to my blog. This is a truly patriotic, fiercely America, capitalist loving blog. There's no place for people like you here.
Yay Candace. I always wonder why people who are so proudly socialist would lower themselves to live in such a capitalist society. They're certainly not reaping the "benefits" of socialism are they? Oh hell no, they're reaping the benefits of Capitalism - with a capital C!
ReplyDelete