1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Obama member of Socialist "New Party" in 1996

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by Angus, Oct 8, 2008.

  1. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    This article reviewed and discussed (below) by Thoma Lifson of The American Thinker Blog today. I have no information about the Politically Drunk on Power blog, but The American Thinker is considered a reputable conservative source:

    ******

    Web Archives Confirm Barack Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996

    Wednesday, October 8, 2008

    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. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

    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.

    From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':

    "New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

    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)."

    Link To The New Party Update

    Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.

    "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. "

    Link To The November 1996 Progressive Populist Article

    The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter.

    "The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base...

    the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

    Link To DSA Article

    Obama's membership within the 'New Party' is disturbing as even Green Party members attacked the DSA and New Party as nothing more than a fringe group. The New Party had hoped to implement Socialist Rule in the United States and was established to counteract the influence of a Democratic Party that they viewed as too moderate and too centered. Now it seems that nearly 10 years after the socialist party fell apart, their strategy of upward growth has reached the White House. Obama's ties to the DSA's New Party is beyond just an association it is outright membership, as clearly defined by the parties August 1996 newsletter, in an outright Socialist organization.

    J Brown
    October 8th, 2008

    http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/web-archives-confirm-barack-obama-was.html

    ***************
    October 08, 2008
    Archives prove Obama was a New Party member

    Thomas Lifson

    Another piece in the puzzle of Barack Obama has been revealed, greatly strengthening the picture of a man groomed by an older generation of radical leftists for insertion into the American political process, trading on good looks, brains, educational pedigree, and the desire of the vast majority of the voting public to right the historical racial wrongs of the land.

    The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling, but after, but the membership, including Barack Obama, continued to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

    Erick Erickson, editor of RedState, explained fusion in a Human Events article:

    Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let's call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama's New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.

    The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. "After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century .... In 1996, it helped Chicago's Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district .... The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued."

    Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.


    J. Brown of Politically Drunk on Power has dug up multiple documentary sources (with hyperlinks) proving that Barack Obama was a member of the New Party, despite alleged attempts to cover up his tracks by scrubbing evidence. He or she deserves tremendous praise for doing this detective work.

    Obama's career bears many signs of being helped along by the radical left. At the critical moment when he entered electoral politics, he was part of a movement to take over an established political party and dirct it to the task of building a socialist America.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html
  2. CanadianCowboysFan

    CanadianCowboysFan Lightning Rod

    15,404 Messages
    369 Likes Received
    and Sarah was a secessionist, what's your point?

    I really wonder sometimes why anyone would run for office, everything they ever did is scrutinized now.
  3. Angus

    Angus Active Member

    5,064 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    What If Obama Doesn't Have America's Best Interests at Heart?

    By A M Siriano
    October 08, 2008


    I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've said to myself and to others more than once: "While it is true that Democrats are seriously misguided, at least they believe they're doing what is right for the country." And by that I have meant that their motives are far less insidious than is our wont to portray them.

    Whenever I hear a Democrat equating President Bush with Adolf Hitler, I am reminded to resist the urge to retaliate by applying to the opposition party abject maliciousness. It's easier to believe that liberals are more delusional than pernicious. Surely the average Democrat at least imagines his way of thinking-a way that resists thinking things through-serves his country well. Can I assume that most Democrats are not actually trying to undermine America?

    Very rarely do I run across a Democrat that makes me question this assessment. I have good friends who, still under the spell of unions, would vote Democrat even if an actual *** were braying at the teleprompter (Al Gore is as close as it gets). These friends, who are devout Catholics, are conservative on just about every issue, but convincing them to vote Republican would be tantamount to having them go Shinto. They are truly good people, but fuzzy-headed enough to still believe that Republicans are for The Man and Democrats are for working stiffs. Never does the idea of interdependence or commensalism between the two cross their minds.

    For people like this, Barack Obama's economic message, that he will focus on "fairness" and the middle class above all else, is every bit as effective as the Marxist rhetoric used to win over half of Europe in the last century. To any struggling, unmindful person who just wants to protect his mousy family from all the fat cats living at his expense, the party that asks, "Why him? Why not you?" sounds very vote-worthy.

    But here's the thing: While I continue to use this idea of "populistic ignorance" to describe Democrats, including most of their leaders (Joe Biden might serve as their poster child), I'm not so sure about Obama. When I compare him to other prominent Democrats, I come away with a very different appraisal, one in which my own fear becomes nearly as pronounced as the admiration felt by his followers.

    In thinking of Hillary Clinton, for example, I don't sense in Obama Hillary's obsessive drive for historical significance. In thinking of Hillary's husband, I don't see an Obama lusting for narcissistic fulfillment (not to mention just plain lusting). In thinking of Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, I don't find in Obama fecklessness or stupidity. In thinking of Ted Kennedy, I can't imagine an Obama of old money entrenchment built upon the encouragement of class warfare (not yet, anyway).

    It is probably very true that we will find in Obama all these things and more, but the point is, if they are in there, he hides them very well. And that's what frightens me about him.

    I have known many "players" in my life, notably in big corporations, who might have easily written, as Obama has, that they "serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." All of them turned out to be the ones who truly did have malicious intent. They were the ones who were survival-of-the-fittest professionals, ready to adapt to any circumstance and say whatever had to be said in order to win the game. They were the ones who built careers on the backs of people of more substance but less savvy, people who were either forced or were willing to lie face-down and be walked on. They were the ones whose artful dishonesty came with eloquence and a smile, concealing designs that were, in the end, hardly conceivable as virtuous. Often -- very often -- they were completely unqualified to lead. Always they found majorities who loved them.

    The reaction to Obama by the people of America is disturbing, to say the least. I have not seen anything quite like it in America. Ronald Reagan, for example, was also very popular, but his name evoked enthusiasm and, at his death, reverence. But never the sort of idolatry inspired by Obama. Even Obama's detractors do not seem to loathe him, at least not in the way that they have loathed the Clintons or Gore or Kerry. I have heard more than one Republican say, "Well, if I have to put up with him for four or more years, at least he's tolerable." Obama's mass appeal is uncommon and frightening.

    So, I am now imagining a very real scenario -- similar to what I have seen on a smaller scale in the corporate world -- about to be played out on a national, and possibly global, level. Our country seems to be ready to put into the seat of power a man -- good-looking, charismatic, silver-tongued, to be sure -- who has almost no experience, has never served in an executive capacity, has barely held a real job, and has no record of success other than his remarkable campaign.

    This is a man who in less than two years has arisen as a political messiah. He has mesmerized an emergent block of college-age voters (whose chief sources of information, by the way, are comedians). He has inspired "Obama youth" corps and Maoist-style choirs of praise. He has been dubbed "the One" by his Matrix-saturated worshippers. He has captured the hearts and minds of half of America, nearly all of the media, and most of the world itself.

    This is also a man whose voting record (meager as it is) puts him in the "far left" category. He brazenly proposes heavy taxation in the face of a tax-hating citizenry. He is unapologetic about his support of entitlements and has consistently voted for bills laden with pork and earmarks. He believes redistribution of wealth is moral, not immoral, despite his supposed biblical roots. He supports every form of abortion, including infanticide. He has alarming ties to extremists, criminals, radicals, and foreign thugs. He started out as a lawyer who learned, and eventually taught, shakedown tactics. He is not afraid to use the race card even as he touts his biracialism as proof that he is "beyond" race. And his idea of defending our country from enemies is to first understand them.

    If Obama is just another bumbling Democrat, who, armed with a lot of really bad policies, simply wants to do America proud, well, then, if elected, he will muddle through the next four to eight years trying to implement change, will be hindered by the American political system, will enervate liberals and thus energize conservatives, and, eventually, the tide will turn. Like the aftermath of a very disagreeable season, we will have weathered the storm, will survey the damage, and will send in the rescue teams to rebuild.

    But then again: What if Obama doesn't have America's best interest at heart? What if his candidacy has to do with the willful and radical recreation of the country, one that embraces Marxist ideals, i.e., socialism in some form or another? What if the "change we can believe in" -- the central theme of his campaign -- is directed subversion of the Republic in favor of the sort of Utopian, collectivist state that radicals like Bill Ayers have been dreaming of since the Sixties?

    Who needs revolution when one can use evolution? If Congress turns decidedly left, Obama will have a good chance to help the Supreme Court do the same. At that point, the Left's idea of a "living" Constitution, which allows interpretation to supplant the process of amendment, will be used to make us all believers.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_if_obama_doesnt_have_amer.html
  4. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,761 Messages
    1,684 Likes Received
    Well, I've asked it many times. How did a guy become so powerful in less then two years?

    Still, nobody answers that question.
  5. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,843 Messages
    312 Likes Received
    [IMG]
  6. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,906 Messages
    195 Likes Received
    It's pretty simple really. His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention is what put him in the national spotlight. Basically, since that day, he's been a pretty big name in politics on the left.
  7. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,761 Messages
    1,684 Likes Received

    I don't buy this. I mean, I understand the speech thing. I even remember it but, he is a very Jr. level Senator. He has aquired more power, in less time, then many, many people who have seniority on him politically and monitarily. It just doesn't balance out to me.
  8. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    If that blows you away. You probably didn't even know who Palin was a few months ago. How do you explain that? There are plenty of GOPers who have senority on her politically and monetarily. It just doesn't balance out to me.
  9. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    8,906 Messages
    195 Likes Received
    Exactly. If it was only based on seniority, we'd have a lot of old guys running for president every cycle. Youth is not a bad thing.
  10. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,761 Messages
    1,684 Likes Received
    Actually, we knew who Palin was around May or so. Granted, that isn't a long time but that's longer then most.

    Having said that, it's different. I kinda went through this the otehr day but in a nut shell, Palin is selected by McCain and his advisors. Obama was ELECTED by his party. That's a very different thing indeed. The role of the VP, for most of my life, has been a very small part of any given Presidents administration until just very recently. To me, it's not the same situation at all.
  11. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    77,003 Messages
    2,793 Likes Received
    For those who do not mind having a socialist form of Government this is not going to be a big story. Others have been saying this for a while. If Socialism is what you want then Obama is clearly your man it is not meant to be a slam just the facts
  12. Wheat

    Wheat Philosopher

    2,924 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    Obama was selected by the voters in those Primaries. come on now.

    So was McCain. You think the diehard GOP establishment really wanted this RINO?
  13. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,889 Messages
    4,241 Likes Received
    Well everyone that voted for the recent bailout seems to be a socialist right now...including one of the top republicans that suggested it with the first proposal.

    ...just saying.
  14. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,843 Messages
    312 Likes Received
    I know us conservatives didn't... it was our worst nightmare...
  15. poke

    poke the older I get the better I was

    2,574 Messages
    4 Likes Received
    being asked to speak at your parties convention usually means you have been
    seen as " a rising star", Bill Clinton spoke in 1988 ( very long speech) before he won the nomination 4 yrs later.
    its not that uncommon
    4 yrs from now Sarah may well be the REPs nominee.
    i did answer your question a couple of days ago.
    whether you like the answer or not is up to you.
  16. Doomsday101

    Doomsday101 Well-Known Member

    77,003 Messages
    2,793 Likes Received
    I'm not going to argue with that however that is 1 bill not an entire ideology. Yes many on both sides gritted their teeth and voted for this bill that is a bit different than putting an entire socialistic programs and government in place. If some Americans feel that is the way to go then they have a voice on Election Day but at least face up to realities.
  17. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    34,761 Messages
    1,684 Likes Received
    I don't know but that has no barring on this discussion. This is not about McCain. McCain, may or may not have been a popular choice but he is one of the most powerful Senators in the U.S. with a great deal of Seniority. It's not a head scratcher to figure out how he got there. With Obama, your talking about a guy who has only been a Senator for less then two years. To go from there to President of the most powerful country in the history of the world is remarkable. Even unbelievable IMO.
  18. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    You forgot to mention that Palin faked her pregnancy to hide her daughter's delivery of Trig.
  19. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    60,889 Messages
    4,241 Likes Received
    I can't believe you of all people would think that.




    I know you were joking.
  20. ThaBigP

    ThaBigP New Member

    2,062 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I was being sarcastic..... :confused:

Share This Page