Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005
0 Kudos

OBAMA'S HARD-LEFT PARTY TIES

[ Editado ]

OBAMA'S SECRETIVE HARD-LEFT PARTY  TIES

By Arnold Ahlert On June 8, 2012 In Daily  Mailer,FrontPage



"Barack Obama was once a member of  the Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party."

National Review Online writer Stanely Kurtz has been  tireless in his efforts to vet Barack Obama. His work in exposing the  president’s associations with radical leftists, despite solid evidence, has been  dismissed as the efforts of a “right-wing hatchet man” or ignored altogether by  a willfully oblivious mainstream media.

In 2008, Kurtz was hammered as  someone “pushing a new crackpot smear” by Obama campaign website, Fight the  Smears, for a column revealing that Mr. Obama “had been a member of, and  endorsed by the hard-left New Party.”

He further noted that the New  Left “functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community  Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).” In a piece published yesterday, Kurtz  produced the proverbial smoking gun tying the president to the New  Party.

“Recently obtained evidence from the  updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now  definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party,” Kurtz  writes. “He also signed a ‘contract’ promising to publicly support and associate  himself with the New Party while in office.”

Kurtz then produced minutes of a meeting held on  January 11, 1996 by the New Party’s Chicago chapter:

“Barack Obama, candidate for State  Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and  answered questions. He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested  an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New  Party.”

When the original story broke in 2008, Obama campaign  spokesman Ben LaBolt denied the president had ever been a member of the  organization. Fight the Smears echoed that contention, declaring  that:

“the truth is Barack has been a member of only  one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his  career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once  in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never  solicited the endorsement.”

Politico blogger Ben Smith piled on as well. “Popping  up in my inbox lately, and on some conservative blogs, is the allegation that Barack Obama was once a member of the  Communist/Socialist/secretive/evil New Party, which is based  (reasonably) on a New Party publication describing him in passing as a member,” wrote Smith. Smith then called up New Party founder Joel Rogers, a University of  Wisconsin professor, “who objected both to the characterization of the party and  Obama’s relationship to it.”

Rogers debunked the idea that Barack Obama was a member,  contending that the new Party “didn’t really have members.” That contention was “updated” in a subsequent email, when Rogers explained that the New Party had “no formal membership structure in the usual party sense of members, with people  registering with election boards for primary and other restrictive elections…We  did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant  contributing regularly…Anyway, [Obama] certainly wasn’t either. He was just a  good candidate whom we endorsed.”

 





Smith noted that La Bolt also denied Mr. Obama was a member of  the organization. Thus, his entire “investigation” consisted of taking two Obama  supporters at their word, something that was apparently sufficient evidence for  a mainstream media that never pursued the issue any further.

Yet Kurtz completely debunks Rogers’ contention that  the New Party had no members with the group’s own documents. First, he reveals a  memo written by Rogers on January 29, 1996 in his capacity as head of the New  Party Interim Executive Council. In it Rogers addresses “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and  activity, the need for visibility as well as new  members.”

Kurtz further notes that internal New Party  documents reveal an organization “practically obsessed with signing up new  members,” both nationally and in Chicago. Kurtz then writes about another New  Party memo revealing an internal dispute between two factions in the Chicago  branch “in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify  potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those  voters had not renewed their memberships.”

Thus, Kurtz concludes, “the memo clearly demonstrates  that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the  right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party  endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day  he joined the party.”

Kurtz then refutes the fallback assertion by Rogers that the  New Party “was never about” socialism, a claim buttressed at the time by  left-wing blogger Ann Althouse, who sarcastically contended that the  organization “presented themselves not as socialists, but as left-leaning and  progressive. I realize that for right wingers that counts as ‘socialist,’ but  let’s not be inflammatory.”

Kurtz opts for accuracy:

“The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim  was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a  goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New  Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of  business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials  and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American  economy to an unprecedented degree.”

 

Saul     Alinsky:
Lest we   forget  at least and over-the shoulder
acknowledegment   to the very first radical: from   all
our  legends,  mythology, and history (and who is to
know  where mythology leaves off and history begins-
or which  is  which), the first radical knwon to man
who   rebelled  against the establishment and did it
so effectivelly   that  he at least won his own kingdom
-Lucifer
 
Obama   studied and has used the soul less   tactics of Saul Alinsky to destroy  political  enemies. They are   currently using the Alinsky tactic of ridicule  to destroy   Republican  candidates as well as alienate and marginalize   conservative black   Americans.
 
"The    darkest  places in hell are reserved for those who    maintain their neutrality in times of moral  crisis"   Dante  Alighieri



“The party’s official ‘statement  of principles,’ which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter  were asked to support, called for a ‘peaceful revolution’ and included  redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic  party.”

At the end of his piece, Kurtz issues a challenge to  the same “press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008,” wondering if it “will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third  party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the  presidency.” Regardless, Kurtz promises further revelations of his own in the  upcoming issue of National Review, further illuminating “the New Party’s  ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this  to the president’s campaign for reelection.”

It was apparently easy for a  media still enchanted with hope and change to ignore Kurtz’s 2010 political  biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story  of American Socialism, a book exposing much of the president’s radical leftist  past.

Tellingly, it was released one month before the 2010 election,  in which a large majority of Americans refuted much of Barack Obama’s  hyper-partisan agenda. A mainstream media effort to ignore documented  evidence–for the second time–may be impossible for one over-riding reason: Mitt Romney is not John McCain, and isn’t going to be cowed into “dignified” silence by leftist threats of racism aimed at anyone bringing up the  president’s past associations.

Neither will Stanley Kurtz,  who’s doing exactly what any investigative journalist ought to be doing. For  that he is to be congratulated.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: OBAMA'S HARD-LEFT PARTY TIES

Watergate at 40: Obama is the Democrats’ Nixon

By John Ransom

6/11/2012

 

The national nightmare that has been Obama was brought into sharper contrast last weekend for me as I read stories about the 40th anniversary of Watergate.

In governing sstyle, not necessarily substance, there are certainly parallels between Obama and Nixon.

In can be argued that both men derived their aggressiveness from feelings of inadequacy they endured as children. Both brought these feelings of adequacy in the form of personal demons into the White House; demons that gave them plastic personalities that never really took shape. Both let their demons dictate how they governed- rudderless, compass-less but always needy- to the great detriment of the nation.

Both men only had to face those demons to achieve great things.

In this, both men failed. 

To some extent Nixon and Obama were trapped by impulses beyond their control- or it least by impulses they wished not to control.

 

“Nixon had a troubled childhood. Raised by a sometimes abusive father and a controlling mother,” says Notable Biographies, “Nixon adopted parts of both his parents' personalities. Some historians have believed that, as a result of his childhood, Nixon had a drive to succeed and felt he had to pretend to be ‘good’ while using any tactics necessary to achieve his goals.”

Obama too had what can only be termed as an unhappy childhood. It has left him, like Nixon, ambivalent about the space that he occupies in the world.

Yes, he’s part white; and yes he’s part black.

But he seems uncomfortable with both races. Even more than just uncomfortable: He is actually hostile to both (all?) races, yet still race-conscious.

Yes, he’s an avowed Christian.

But it’s a strange Christianity that tries to disavow his chosen religion while embracing other religions in a way that appears to many as an endorsement of those religions as superior in some way.

Think of this: Of all the places Obama chose to have a political career he picked Chicago, Illinois. He then wrapped himself in the flag of “reform,” “different,” “better.”

There’s no better place than Chicago to adopt the Nixonian tactic of pretending to be “good” while using any tactics necessary to achieve your goals.

But making a decision to transplant to Chicago for politics- a place that has such obvious contrasts between good and bad- can leave one with serious root burn on the soul.

That root burn can often manifest itself in a sense of entitlement that puts one above the rules, where ends only matter, not means in order to justify the double lie.

While many of us labored under the impression that the presidency elevated men, in the case of Nixon and Obama, it instead exposed their flaws.   

"Nixon believed that you use the presidency as an instrument of personal avenge or reward," says Watergate reporter Bob Woodward, as reported in the Orlando Sun Sentinel.

There’s no better way to describe Chicago political way and the personal **noallow** of governing that Obama has brought to the White House.

From the crony capitalism practiced by Obama, to his enemies lists, to the pork-barrel highway contracts let out by his mob-connected Secretary of Transport, GOP Illinois combine product Ray Lahood -complete with signs: “Your stimulus dollars at work”- Obama’s made shifting the levers of federal power if not an art form, at least a compulsion that makes governing difficult.

Corruption in government spending and power however wasn’t invented by Obama or Nixon. 

Where their personal flaws are really obvious is their insistence on getting credit even  for things that had no real moment.

"It was always about Nixon and the real tragedy about all of this probably crimes, abuse, but the smallness of it,” continued Woodward, “and Nixon failed to realize that particularly when he took over as president in '69 in the early months that the country felt even Democrats, good will- we want our president to succeed.”

It’s hard to not apply the same argument to Obama as well.

While certainly professional pols had real policy issues with Obama, in the winter of 2009, I would venture that most Americans were scared enough of the financial crisis that that they too wanted Obama to succeed.

I can remember talking with political professionals from the right who took a great deal of comfort from the fact that Obama’s economic team contained some key Clinton alumni. One told me that if Obama followed the fiscal plan that Clinton executed that the country wouldn’t be as bad off as we thought.

But it was soon apparent that more important than governing well for Obama was advancing the story of Obama the Invincible, the One. Everything was subsumed to evening the Q score for the Obama brand worldwide even to the extent of deliberately insulting the Queen of England, the figurehead of our most important ally, trade partner and our largest direct investor.

Yes. Despite what Obama would have us believe, our most important partner is not China. It’s the U.K.

According to the Congressional Research Service report of May 2012, the U.K. accounts for the largest direct investment in the U.S., almost doubling the next nearest rival, Japan.

But those petty slights delivered to our key ally are nothing compared to Obama’s deliberate misuse of the military and intelligence communities to advance the idea of Obama the Strongman.

From the killing of Osama bin Laden to the war in Libya to the New York Times intelligence leaks, Obama has so needed the spotlight to remain on him that he deliberately endangered our troops and brave men and women- many of them not even Americans- who have risked all to keep the country **noallow**.

“This has to stop,” said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California according to FoxNews. “When people say they don't want to work with the United States because they can't trust us to keep a secret, that's serious.”

Doubtless Obama supporters would disagree with my assessment. But I don’t really care about their opinion.

Because while the parallels are there, most notable and instructive for the country are the places where the Nixon and Obama stories diverge.

“He immediately launched the campaign of let's spy on people,” said Woodward of Nixon, “let's do something dirty and there was never that sense of let's harmonize and solve the big problems. It was always let's screw somebody, let's get the IRS on them, let's get the FBI on them."

And so it goes with Obama.

While we were all shocked and angered at the revelation of Nixon’s abuses, today the same abuses are not only ignored but tolerated- even encouraged- by the Left.

I never thought I would see a time when the U.S. government would deliberately sell guns to Mexican drug cartels just to advance a petty policy argument about gun control, while the press stood by with not a word or reproach. Or allow the Black Panthers to practice the worst type of racism abetted by the highest law enforcement officer in the land, while the press applauded.    

Because the key in allowing such abuses are the folks in the Fourth Estate who are supposed to protect us from power grabs by government and their key allies on the Left or Right.

Nixon lost his soul. And to save the country he had to go.

This time, key parts of the country have sold their soul to a man who is, like Nixon, soul-sick.

But today, whether that man stays or goes doesn’t matter.

It only matters that we reclaim our own soul.

Salvation for our country can only come one soul at a time, because that is how we sold it: one soul at a time.  

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: OBAMA'S HARD-LEFT PARTY TIES



 

MARXIST JOHN C.DREW   AND   HIS  CLASSMATE, BARACK OBAMA

Dr.   John  C.  Drew and Barack  Obama: The Chance encounter at   Occidental    College

All voices ^ | Feb 18, 2010 | Redhanded

Drew also thought that Obama   was   money  hungry and may have married Michelle because  he  thought she was  rich  based on  the fact that her  brother was a  wealthy  investment  banker.

 

 

“The second time I went  out   to   California to attend Mohammad Hassan Chandoo’s  graduation  from  Occidental   College, Obama was enjoying  the lavish  lifestyle being  financed by his  friend  and  roommate at the  time - Hassan Chandoo.  The wealthy patron   provided Obama   access to big houses, lavish  parties & had  him dressed  in the  slickest  clothes. I could have  sworn  they were both Gay &    wealthy.”

Those were some of the initial observations by Dr.   John   C.  Drew, PhD, on his second encounter with Barack  Obama  who was   attending  Occidental College at the  time.

Much has been speculated about Barack Obama’s  college   days  and  with good reason. These years are a  mystery in his past.  We  know very  little  other than that  by many account witnesses,  many of  his early days  in  college  were reminiscent of the type  of partying  and drug use  that took  place inside the  walls of  the famed NYC   nightclub; Studio 54.

There is however Dr. John C. Drew and his  chance    encounter  with Obama at Occidental College. A  chance encounter  because  the  only reason  that Barack  Obama chose to attend the  small Liberal  Arts  College was  because of  a girl he met from  Brentwood while  vacationing  in  Hawaii.

Drew who described  himself   as  an  enemy of the government and a Marxist  during his days in   college,  claims that  not only was  Obama part of the “brotherhood & revolution” - he embraced   Marxist-Leninism. He was basically a   hard-core Marxist   in  college.

That was the reason Drew had flown out  to    Occidental  College in the first place. It appears  that the girl that   Drew  was dating at the  time also knew  Obama. She wanted Drew to  meet  this man  that shared  similar  philosophical views. Barry,  as he  preferred to  be  called in those days - would  later get  together with   Drew & his  girlfriend to discuss Marxism over  drinks  and  dinner  and a lot of partying  afterwards. Some of  the  revelations that came   to light during this  interview   session with Obama are startling to say  the     least.

One of the    interesting   observations that Drew made during his visits with   Obama  was the lack or   presence of African Americans  within  Obama’s circle  of friends. “I got the  sense  that  Obama did not  have deep roots in  the African  American    community”.

Drew also thought   that   Obama  was money hungry and may have married  Michelle  because he  thought  she was rich  based on the  fact that her  brother was a  wealthy  investment    banker.

 

 

Photobucket

On   his  second trip to California, Drew says that he went out to meet   with  Obama and some school professors to make the case  against   Marxism  being a good fit in the US. He recalls   that  even  after presenting Obama with evidence on his theory,  Obama  turned  against him. He let me know in so many words that he  was an  intense  Marxist    proponent.

Drew says that Obama  was   in complete 100% agreement with his Marxist college professors  who wanted  a  revolution in this country to overturn the power  structure. He was  consumed  with  the notion of wealth  redistribution & more  affirmative action  programs to  bring  about less inequality and more  income equality. He  espoused the John  Rawls Theory of Justice and his ‘veil of ignorance   theory.

"No one knows his place in society, his    class  pposition or social status, nor does anyone know his fortune   in  the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his   intelligence,  strength, and  the like. I shall even assume that  the  parties do not know  their conceptions of  the good or their  special  psychological propensities.  The principles of justice are  chosen behind a  veil of  ignorance."

Drew saw Obama as a young man in a  hurry.  Soon  after his friend Hassan Chandoo graduated, Obama  realized that his  fancy &  rich lifestyle would not be financed  anymore. That is when he  decided  to move east and attend Columbia  University. This is where his  college days  became hazy.  No one  that attended Columbia during that  same period of time  can recall  much about the slim black kid with the half  afro.

From there Obama eventually moved on to  Harvard   and  after graduating, headed out to Chicago to become  a Community   Organizer. A move  that Drew says is a logical  career step for a   revolutionary coming out colleges  like  Occidental and Columbia in  those  days. Next step in the progression  was to  become a college  professor and  finally and adjunct  professor at the university of Chicago  where he used  his to argue on  behalf of the socialist  perspective &    revolution.

There he talked about how the Constitution    guarantees negative liberties but not the positive liberties that you   would  see in a society that redistributes its wealth so that it  was   more equal.

After his stint as an adjunct  professor   he  took the next step in the natural progression of  an ideologue. He   entered the world of politics with the blessing of Alice Palmer and kicked   off  his  political career in the living room of one Bill Ayers.  So as we get a  glimpse  at  what Barack  Obama was like during those early days,  we begin to  get a  clear picture of how he is continuing with  ideologies that he was so  passionate  about.

We can begin to understand his dislike for the   rich  and his decision to tax anyone making over $250,000. We begin  to  understand  why he would say that he would rather be a good  one-term  President than  sell-out his  principles. The guilt of  not being able  to move the  Progressive cause forward  would be  too much of a cross  to  bear.

We have seen the actions that he has   taken  to  try and move this cause forward. We have been witness  to  the many  people that he  has put in his administration that  are  bordering on  Marxist.

John Drew’s telling   glimpse  into the mind of an ideologue is very   telling.

In a recent poll taken,   73%  of  Americans believe that Obama is a Socialist.  Fifty-three  percent of  Democrats  have a positive view of  Socialism. This is not  something to be  taken lightly. Do  not  underestimate this believe. It  appears that they may  have the right  man at  the top to carry forward  the   cause.

Acero
giron61
Mensajes: 2,263
Registrado: ‎06-14-2012

Re: OBAMA'S HARD-LEFT PARTY TIES

The Last Socialist in   America

By John Ransom

7/5/2012



«Esa   futura esclavitud --decía Martí--es el socialismo»
"El  comunismo es intrinsicamente perverso" H.H. Pope Pío  XI

History may give Obama a few different monikers, but  according  to a well-known report by the Heritage Foundation, he may be  best known as the Red Tape President. Facing an increasingly  disenchanted  electorate, the president who campaigned on hope seems to be  fashioning a  political noose created by his own red  tape.   

Last year Obama chief of staff Bill Daley faced  an  angry crowd of manufacturers who complained that the red tape imposed  by Obama’s  regulatory policies was killing business and jobs, especially  in manufacturing.  Daley called the regulatory policies “indefensible,” and  implied that relief was  on the way.

Several weeks later Obama promised in his 2011 economic  report  to Congress to take a “commonsense approach to regulation that is  pragmatic.” But thus far his administration has displayed little commonsense and  even less  pragmatism in imposing regulations on an economy struggling to  regain its  footing.

At the end of July the Heritage Foundation detailed in Red  Tape Rising the mounds of red tape that the Obama  administration had  subjected the country to from 2009 when he was  inaugurated to mid-year 2011, not  including pending Obamacare and  Dodd-Frank regulations, which will tower over  all other government tape  bales. “Overall, the Obama Administration imposed 75  new major regulations  from January 2009 to mid-FY 2011, with annual costs of $38  billion,” reports Heritage.  In contrast, there were only six deregulatory   actions by the Obama administration saving $1.5 billion says the Heritage   report.  And those costs were just the cost by the government to  implement  the regulations. 

In terms of the overall impact on the economic health of  the  country, the figure is much higher.  “More specifically, the  total cost of  federal regulations has increased to $1.75 trillion,” writes  the federal  government’s own Small Business Administration. Heritage  reports that that’s  nearly twice the amount that the government collects  annually in individual  income taxes, calling it a hidden tax, not just on  the rich, but on everyone  equally.

Because it prevents the creation of more jobs, however,  it  hits the poor and middle class particularly hard, “while the updated  cost per  employee for firms with fewer than 20 employees is now $10,585 (a  36 percent  differ­ence between the costs incurred by small firms when  compared with  their larger counterparts),” says the SBA  In other  words, small employers  take it on the chin even harder than the big guys.  While Obama’s rhetoric  panders to the little guys, his actions seemed  geared to favor the big guys  instead. Maybe that’s what the president  meant when he said his administration  was only into doing “big” things.

Acero
giron61
Mensajes: 2,263
Registrado: ‎06-14-2012

Re: OBAMA'S HARD-LEFT PARTY TIES

part 2



It’s not hard to figure why the Obama administration is  creating jobs at a post-war low.

The SBA report details five different sectors of the economy:  manufacturing, trade (wholesale and retail), services, health care, and all  other. “The sector-specific findings reveal that the disproportionate cost  burden on small firms is particularly stark for the manufacturing sector,” says  the SBA. That’s of particular concern because the country has been banking on a  revival of manufacturing to compete globally in the coming decades.

To no one’s surprise environmental regulations seem to be the “main cost drivers in determining the severity of the disproportionate impact on  small firms,” says the SBA, with tax compliance coming in number two. “Compliance with environmental regulations costs 364 percent more in small firms  than in large firms. The cost of tax compliance is 206 percent higher in small  firms than the cost in large firms.”

The register Code of Federal Regulations hit a record 163,000  pages in 2009 and the number of pending regulations costing more than $100  million has more than doubled according to Heritage. And once on the books,  regulations are almost impossible to get rid of. One regulation that’s been  requested for elimination for over four years, says Heritage, is one that treats “milk as an ‘oil,’ thus requiring dairy spills to be treated as hazardous.  According to the agency, exempting milk from the regulation will save dairies  around $1.4 billion over the next 10 years.” And yet this regulation still sits  on the books four years later, even with the support of the Obama administration  in getting rid of it.

Now, according to the Center for Fiscal Accountability, when  we add in the costs of implantation of just Obamacare over the next ten years  the costs soar another $230 billion per year.

If you thought the current total of regulatory costs was  hurting the economy, wait until healthcare is “free.” And the CFA’s estimate  doesn’t account for the increases in health insurance premiums that consumers  are already facing in the wake of Obamacare being passed.

When Obama promised to transform America in the fall  of 2008, few thought he’d accomplish it by binding it up in a socialist red  tape. But expect the binding of our economy to continue until the fall of 2012,  when another candidate promises to reclaim America by cutting red tape and  finally, really consigning socialism to the dust bin of  history.

Perhaps then Obama can instead be  known as the Last

Socialist in America.