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.”
“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.
06-08-2012 09:19 AM - editado 06-08-2012 11:41 AM
Watergate at 40: Obama is the Democrats’ Nixon
By John Ransom
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.
Publicado: 06-11-2012 11:39 AM
MARXIST JOHN C.DREW AND HIS CLASSMATE, BARACK OBAMA
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.
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.
Publicado: 06-12-2012 01:07 PM
The Last Socialist in America
By John Ransom
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.
Publicado: 07-05-2012 12:46 PM
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.
Publicado: 07-05-2012 12:48 PM