The Discerning Texan

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
Wednesday, October 08, 2008

UPDATED AND BUMPED -- THE EVIDENCE -- Obama WAS member of Socialist 'New Party'

UPDATE: John Hinderaker's post leaves little to the imagination:

This may be a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. The political, media, cultural and social establishments are determined to elect the pro-status quo, anti-change candidate, Barack Obama, as President. The power and money arrayed behind Obama seem unbeatable. At the same time, it is inconceivable that the American people would elect a socialist President. So, if this report is correct, something's got to give.

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. ...

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

Here it is:

So the New Party claimed Obama as a member as of 1996. Progressive Populist magazine agreed in this editorial:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

The Democratic Socialist Party of America was slightly more modest in claiming Senator Obama as an adherent:

Still, it appears clear that as of 1996, the New Party and its parent organization the Democratic Socialists of America considered Barack Obama to be their guy--one of a handful of avowed socialists running for office at any level in the United States. It strikes me that Obama has some explaining to do.

(Who knew??)

From Jawa, read it and weep (for your country):

From Ace. Via the Wayback Machine, evidence that Barack Obama was a member of the "New Party":

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
What was the "New Party"? It was a far-left "workers' party" fighting for:
full employment

a shorter work week

a guaranteed minimum income for all adults and a universal “social wage”

full public financing of elections with universal voter registration

“the democratization of banking and financial systems”, which included public control and regulation of banking

a more progressive tax system

reductions in military spending and an end to unilateral military interventions.

Will anyone in the mainstream media say 'boo' about this? Of course not. Will John McCain? Probably not. Will Sarah Palin? Maybe...

UPDATE: SH provides this from Ace:

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July....

Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

UPDATE 2 : Newsbusters asks (rhetorically, of course) "Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?"
Dan Riehl asks: Are you Connecting the Dots? :

As I've already said to some, that Obama was in the New Party isn't new. But keep in mind the ACORN connection I pointed out back in May, then connect the dot some seem to be missing.

ACORN and The New Party were somewhat one and the same because TNP relied on ACORN to become established in Chicago.

After a false start in New York, the New Party built modestly successful chapters in several states. Some of these chapters — such as those in Chicago and Little Rock — had their main bases of support in the low-income community organizing group ACORN, along with some support from various labor unions (especially ACORN-allied locals of the Service Employees International Union).

And at least in part, how did the mighty ACORN grow? That would be courtesy of Obama and Ayres via the CAC. In a very real sense, Obama took foundation monies that were supposed to improve education - failed at that, but managed to establish the very bedrock of Leftism which ultimately lifted him to his first elected office. Sweet deal, huh? Too bad it did nothing at all for the children it was supposed to help.

So, to whom did CAC's money go?

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

And then there is this from Bob Owens:

Reader Gus Bailey pointed this out earlier via email, and Ace breaks out the flaming skull.

I don't understand what the big deal is about.

So Barack Obama was a member of an extremist political party established by the Democratic Socialists for America, the Chicago New Party, and they cheered his victory in his uncontested run for his Illinois state senate seat as a step away from American values, towards socialism.

Does it really matter?

Barack Obama's most direct political godfather is a bomb-building terrorist still bent on undermining capitalism. His hostess for his first political fundraiser was once labeled "the most dangerous woman in America" and is a fan of how the Charles Manson "family" murdered their victims.

Barack Obama's cultish church of 21 years is built upon a combination of Black Panther rhetoric, racism against whites, and a Marxist Jesus Christ. If his pastor and mentor Jeremiah Wright had not shrieked " God damn America!" and had not tried to blame the AIDS virus on a government attempt at genocide against African Americans, Barack Obama would still being going to that church.

Barack Obama laundered millions of dollars in education funds to extremist groups in an attempt to indoctrinate children instead of educate them.

Barack Obama, while a member of the Joyce Foundation, attempted to undermine the integrity of legal scholarship in a shadowy attempt to subvert the Constitution and imperil the Second Amendment by conning the Supreme Court.

Folks, if being deeply associated with terrorist leaders and racists for more than two decades doesn't cause disgust in American voters, if they don't care how Obama funneled grant money to extremists, and tried to undermine the Constitution, will his membership in a political party that seeks to undermine the America way of life really stand a chance of changing their minds?

Owens is right: this sort of thing would have been on every front page in America 20 years ago; today the media merely yawns and ignores it.

How far we have come.

DiscerningTexan, 10/08/2008 11:05:00 PM |