the ability to read minds and hearts, I can’t really tell you
if Barack Obama is uniquely dishonest. What is for certain, though,
is that his campaign is uniquely deceitful. These two things are not
synonymous. Politicians are famous for suppressing facts and manufacturing
fantasies to hide their faults, and, while Obama certainly practices
this sleight-of-hand, I can’t say he is more inured to it that
your average prevaricating pol. But what is doubtless is that he has
more faults to hide.
ironic that Obama has used the “lipstick on a pig” line,
because Avon’s whole inventory couldn’t, sans media spin,
cover up his true colors. And color is a factor this election. It’s
not that the senator is black, however, or that, as he said last debate
alluding to McCain’s criticism, he is “green behind the
ears.” It’s that he is red behind the ears.
Obama may be the most radically-left major-party presidential nominee
in our nation’s history. A recent
analysis of voting records – not words but actions –
showed that the senator owned the most left-wing record in
the Senate in 2007, placing him ahead of even that body’s one
avowed socialist, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. Now, if Sanders
proclaims himself a socialist, and Obama is to the left of Sanders,
what do you call Obama?
course, some question the methodology of the study, and, true enough,
a different one might yield slightly different rankings. But if Obama
is within a sickle-length of socialist Sanders, does it really matter
if he is a couple of spots above or below? This is an instance where
we definitely should remember second place.
accusations of socialism are, well, just so hard to believe. But a damning
revelation just came to light that should leave no doubt about Obama’s
blog “Politically Drunk On Power” (PDOP) just discovered
documents showing that the senator was a member of the “New Party,”
which is, the blog explains,
. . 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
listen to this. The New Party tried its best to obscure Obama’s
ties to the organization – I’m guessing with the complicity
of the senator’s campaign – and had scrubbed the
relevant documents from its website; however, PDOP was able to find
them at a non-profit Internet Archive
Organization. Quoting from the October
1996 New Party update, the blog reveals:
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).
then cites the November 1996 issue of Progressive Populist
magazine, which reported on the results of the general election, writing:
Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate
seat from Chicago [emphasis mine].”
further evidence, PDOP provides an excerpt from the DSA’s July/August
Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter,
which in part reads:
. . 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
. . . . [One of them,] Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate
District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education
and Voter Registration.
first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming
85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that
district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack
Obama won uncontested.”
there is an obvious question. If Obama was a member of the New Party,
why was he running as a Democrat in Illinois? The answer is that these
socialists were Machiavellian and understood that they could not as
yet win power under their own banner. This tactic was outlined in the
New Party’s 1997
Happy Birthday Update. Here are parts of the PDOP excerpt:
. . the New Party would remain independent of the Democratic Party –
but without undermining the Democrats.
. . . the New Party's founders suggest, the left needs an organization
that straddles the inside-outside fence. If the U.S. left is ever to
make a meaningful decision on the third-party-vs.-Dems question, they
propose, it must first take on the task of grassroots power-building.
. . . The party's strategy has been to build political organizations
in a few targeted cities, working closely with labor and community organizations.
Obama’s history as a “community organizer” still sound
innocuous or even positive? The above provides the strongest indication
that he was a socialist community organizer.
is more from the update:
run candidates only where they have a real chance of winning, combine
campaign work with organizing and education, and refuse
to spoil elections by stealing votes from the better of two major party
candidates [emphasis mine].”
this fact, is it any surprise that ex-weathermen terrorist and Obama
ally Bill Ayers obtained a $50 million government grant for “education”
and then gave it the senator, who, in turn, funneled it to ACORN, a
group involved in “organizing”?
. . Until major changes in the legal structure of the U.S. politics
happen, we're stuck with a two-party system, and progressives –
if they want to win many elections – will have to run, and vote,
. . . [Our affiliated] organizations can, from time to time, move their
political muscle and know-how into Democratic primaries to back progressive
candidates for state legislature and even Congress, but do not have
the size or clout to field their own candidates for the Senate, the
Governor's office, or the White House.
but it now seems they very well may soon have one of their number in
the White House.
PDOP provides evidence from an article
written by New Party member Jim McGrath in 1997:
. . Chapters generally require endorsed candidates to sign a contract,
with requirements that they be NP members, identify as such, support
the NP principles and program, and work to build NP chapters . . . .”
other words, it’s highly probable that Obama signed a contract
with this socialist party and was a member.
from the article:
. . For the New Party, whether progressives should run as Democrats
is a tactical, not ideological, question . . . . Regardless of whether
our candidates run as "non-partisan" (in fact, the vast majority
of our candidates, as we're generally running in local elections which
are usually non-partisan), "New Party Democrats" (inside Dem
Primaries), or independents, they all are New Party members . . . .
that all throughout these quotations, we see continual admissions that
socialists are, in fact, running as Democrat candidates, using the major
party as a political Trojan Horse. These socialists have also won offices
in many parts of the nation. Thus, two ominous questions present themselves:
Should Obama win the presidency, how many in the Democrat-controlled
house will be fellow New Party travelers? And, with both the legislative
and executive branches in their hands and the election past, will the
lipstick come off? Will they feel free to legislate a radical socialist
there is the Chicago DSA Press Release New Ground 69, which
tells us (in the Endorsements Section) of how “. . . Obama
participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity
. . . .”
does “YDS” stand for?
understand that some of you are enraptured by Barack Obama. He is a
charismatic leader at the center of a cult of personality, and you may
not want to think ill of him. But we all want to be responsible voters,
and this requires placing country before oratory, before image, before
personality, before party, and considering evidence presented. And in
Obama’s case it is overwhelming; it can be said beyond a reasonable
doubt that he was a socialist.
responsible citizens must demand two things before giving the senator
their vote. First, he must come clean about his socialist past and exhibit
some contrition. Second, he must convince us that he has renounced these
socialist beliefs and will not push the DSA agenda from the Oval Office.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
also must be mindful of the old saying, “The best predictor of
future behavior is past behavior.” As for the Chicago surprise’s
past, he cultivated his political career in a very bad neighborhood.
A bad ideological one. And if he wants to now occupy 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, the onus is on him to truly prove he has left it behind.
Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist
and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in
print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on
the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning
Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan's magazine,
The American Conservative, and he writes regularly for The New American,
and Christian Music Perspective.
Obama may be the most radically-left major-party presidential nominee
in our nation’s history. A recent analysis of voting records –
not words but actions – showed that the senator owned the most left-wing
record in the Senate in 2007, placing him ahead of even that body’s
one avowed socialist, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.