OBAMA JOINED SOCIALIST PARTY, Surprise, surprise: the bastard lied (yet again) Options

[Bill Bucko]

Linked to by Fox News:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=78945

Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
Democrat's campaign denied allegations, but new evidence indicates membership

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

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....



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....

For those of you too young to remember: Obamah's fellow member Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge and their massacre of millions of Cambodians.

STOP THIS BASTARD NOW!

[Rational Ryan]

Ummm, Obama has been a member of the Democratic party for ages now. Him belonging to a socialist-leaning party is NO shock

[bborg]

I'm just wondering how much evidence it's going to take before ANY of it ends up in the mainstream media.

[Carlos]

I'm just wondering how much evidence it's going to take before ANY of it ends up in the mainstream media.

Evidence is not their criterion.

[ewv]

Ummm, Obama has been a member of the Democratic party for ages now. Him belonging to a socialist-leaning party is NO shock

It's not a shock, but not because he is a Democrat. Not every Democrat is a progressive New Leftist like Palosi; some have been ordinary liberals and even conservatives. Many Democrats used to strongly oppose the communists -- when people used to know what communism meant.

But Obama's support for a socialist party is fully consistent with his other alliances (like Ayers) which we are constantly told are irrelevant as the Obama campaign does everything it can to prevent him from being identified in principle for what he is. The progressives' assault on conceptual thought through package deals, anti-concepts, rejection of any identifications of similarities, and the obliteration of his past history revealing a pattern is all very deliberate. He is the stealth socialist candidate encouraging and exploiting his victims' anti-conceptual pragmatism.

[ewv]

For those of you too young to remember: Obamah's fellow member Noam Chomsky supported the Khmer Rouge and their massacre of millions of Cambodians.

STOP THIS BASTARD NOW!

Chomsky is a Marxist and a communist and has been since at least the 1960s. He openly supported the communist Viet Cong long before the Cambodian massacre. He was very much a leader in the Cambridge New Left which did not just oppose the Vietnam War, but opposed it because they wanted us to lose to the communists.

[ewv]

I'm just wondering how much evidence it's going to take before ANY of it ends up in the mainstream media.

Evidence is not their criterion.

No it isn't. They want him to take the White House because they know very well what he is, and they don't report it because they don't want the voters to know, not because they don't know any better themelves out of lack of evidence.

[Bill Bucko]

Even more evidence of the bastard's long-standing socialist and communist sympathies:

see http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/ob...s-college-days/ :

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days
Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.


Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem ...

... the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Note the bastard's blatant second-handedness: "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout ..."

With the kind of friends he's chosen, he's now floated to the top of American politics, like feces floating to the top of a cesspoll.

[Rational Ryan]

As it's been pointed out by McCain supporters even on this site, Obama and McCain don't disagree much on principles but rather on superficials like the degree to which they will enforce them. Any individual voting for McCain, thinking they are voting against the idea of redistribution of wealth is evading reality.

[KurtColville]

As it's been pointed out by McCain supporters even on this site, Obama and McCain don't disagree much on principles but rather on superficials like the degree to which they will enforce them. Any individual voting for McCain, thinking they are voting against the idea of redistribution of wealth is evading reality.

They're only evading it if they recognize it and choose to blank it out. Most people, in my view, don't even recognize it; they're oblivious to reality. They run on emotions much more than on a mind in gear.

[PhilO]

As it's been pointed out by McCain supporters even on this site, Obama and McCain don't disagree much on principles but rather on superficials like the degree to which they will enforce them. Any individual voting for McCain, thinking they are voting against the idea of redistribution of wealth is evading reality.

If the choice is between mild influenza and Ebola, they may both be infections but it is hardly evading reality to prefer the flu (and better yet, preferring neither one.)

[Jack Wakeland]

As it's been pointed out by McCain supporters even on this site, Obama and McCain don't disagree much on principles but rather on superficials like the degree to which they will enforce them. Any individual voting for McCain, thinking they are voting against the idea of redistribution of wealth is evading reality.

If the choice is between mild influenza and Ebola, they may both be infections but it is hardly evading reality to prefer the flu (and better yet, preferring neither one.)

Amen!

There is not distinction between Altruist-Nationalist-Stoic and Collectivist-Socialist demagogue who sometimes thinks he's a demi-god? There is no distinction between a Republican Party run by welfare statists and a Democratic Party run by opponents of free speech and specialists at election fraud?

Only if you believe in the World of Forms.

Here, in the real world where we are half-salve and half-free, there is a difference.

[Rational Ryan]

As it's been pointed out by McCain supporters even on this site, Obama and McCain don't disagree much on principles but rather on superficials like the degree to which they will enforce them. Any individual voting for McCain, thinking they are voting against the idea of redistribution of wealth is evading reality.

If the choice is between mild influenza and Ebola, they may both be infections but it is hardly evading reality to prefer the flu (and better yet, preferring neither one.)

The added problem with McCain is that people will blame the free market for when his socialist policies fail us. The flu analogy is an invalid one, unless we are mistaking the affects of the flu for something good.

[PhilO]

The added problem with McCain is that people will blame the free market for when his socialist policies fail us. The flu analogy is an invalid one, unless we are mistaking the affects of the flu for something good.

"People" have been and will continue to blame the "free market" *regardless* of who's in power unless more rational ideas are adopted. In the meantime there is no rational argument for choosing a faster rate of destruction, and that is the obvious bottom line.

[Rational Ryan]

I am not advocating choosing a faster track, but not subjecting yourself to the pain of the choice between the fast track and the slow track that brands itself "Capitalism".

People have been able to blame Bush's free market policies for 8 years, and that is why we now have Obama.

But when Carter's socialist policies failed, America DID realize that something was wrong. They elected Ronald Reagan, who did do some good, but ultimately was as much of a sellout as McCain, betraying Capitalism at every supposedly practical step.

[bborg]

I am not advocating choosing a faster track, but not subjecting yourself to the pain of the choice between the fast track and the slow track that brands itself "Capitalism".

Why is it relevant that it brands itself Capitalism? Evil always disguises itself as something else, including Obama who passes off redistribution of wealth as "tax cuts". In fact, I would argue that today the Left is far more dishonest than the Right, and they're more practiced at it. We can't stop the deception, but at least we have some ability to protect ourselves from it.

[B. Royce]

I am not advocating choosing a faster track, but not subjecting yourself to the pain of the choice between the fast track and the slow track that brands itself "Capitalism".

People have been able to blame Bush's free market policies for 8 years, and that is why we now have Obama.

But when Carter's socialist policies failed, America DID realize that something was wrong. They elected Ronald Reagan, who did do some good, but ultimately was as much of a sellout as McCain, betraying Capitalism at every supposedly practical step.

What is wrong with making painful choices?