posted October 09, 2008 12:12 PM            

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 dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

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

quote:

---

Obama and the New Party
by Erick Erickson

Two weeks ago at RedState, we documented Obama’s 1996 endorsement by the New Party. A review of the New Party establishes that not only was the party an amalgamation of far left groups, but Barack Obama knew that when he sought the party’s endorsement.

Most of the New Party’s history has been lost in the digital age. It was established in 1992 and started to die out in 1998, well before Google and the modern web were established. But through lengthy searches of the Nexis archive and microfilm at the local university library, I’ve been able to piece this together.

The New Party was established in 1992 “by union activist Sandy Pope and University of Wisconsin professor Joel Rogers,” USA Today reported on November 16, 1992. The paper wrote that the new party was “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic.’”

The seeds, however, had been sown all the way back in 1988. Quoting John Nichols in the March 22, 1998 issue of In These Times, “The roots of the New Party go back to the aftermath of Jesse Jackson’s run for president in 1988. At that time, Dan Cantor, who had served as labor coordinator for the Jackson campaign, and University of Wisconsin sociology professor Joel Rogers began talking about how to formulate an alternative between the increasingly indistinguishable Democratic-Republican monolith.”

Joel Rogers sought to use the idea of “fusion” as a way to get the New Party into power.

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.

---

posted October 14, 2008 09:02 AM            

After the grand victories of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, King turned his attention to poverty, economic injustice and class inequality. King argued that those "legislative and judicial victories did very little to improve" Northern ghettos or to "penetrate the lower depths of Negro deprivation." In a frank assessment of the civil rights movement, King said the changes that came about from 1955 to 1965 "were at best surface changes" that were "limited mainly to the Negro middle class." In seeking to end black poverty, King told his staff in 1966 that blacks "are now making demands that will cost the nation something. ... You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then."

King’s conclusion? "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." He didn’t say this in the mainstream but to his black colleagues. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-dyson4apr04,0,1840793.story

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. suggested that USA might have to move towards Democratic socialism,but he only said that to blacks.

Maybe we should.

posted October 14, 2008 10:16 AM            

O'Bomber doesn't give a damn about the US or the people of the US. The goal of Marxists and Socialists of all stripes has been the destruction of the United States.

Take Barack O'Bomber and stuff him and his radical Marxist friends where the sun don't shine.

Oh, one other thing Glaucus. Stop trying to compare Barack Hussein O'Bomber with Martin Luther King. It's quite enough that Louis Farrakhan has said O'Bomber is the Messiah. Bullshiiiit.

If you want so called democratic socialism Glaucus then the shores of Europe or elsewhere beckon you. Anyone who thinks America is going to change America to suit you or any other group of constant whining complainers is certifiably nuts.

posted October 14, 2008 10:35 AM            

when all Americans became citizens
when it came to slavery being abolished
when it came to civil rights
when it came to interracial marriage bans abolished
when it came to women gaining the right to vote,and getting more rights...as well as abortion/prochoice
when it came to gay anti discrimination laws
when it came to gay marriage being legalized in 3 states

USA didn't change on its own. It was forced to change. ...because of activists/advocates making their voices being heard,protesting,speaking out against injustices, and they were accused of whining. Many people didn't like those changes being made, and so they whined about them.

pretty ironic....when people didn't have certain rights and complained about it,they were accused of being whiners

but when these "whiners" got their rights, the accusers ended up whining

USA has always have been forced to change

just because a person says that a person is messiah doesn't necessarily mean that person agrees with that saying. That's most ridiculous argument that a person can come up with. Guilt by association because of what a person says.

USA was based on the rebellion against Great Britain because they whined about the British government mistreatment of them, but they weren't concerned about all Americans - especially not the Blacks,Native Americans,and women.
Therefore USA was built on not only rebellion,but dissent and protest as well as hypocrisy and selfrighteousness.

BTW I don't have to go any where. Like you,I am a born American citizen with rights. I am a free person,and I accept and tolerate diversity in this country I don't get off telling people they need to leave their own country because I don't agree with their views. There is such thing as the 1st amendment.

Boy..you have serious issues,man.

You can get off all your conservative self righteous high horse!

your poop stinks like everybody else's.

You have some serious Erisian problems, man. Like somebody pointed out, you are the type who thinks that your views are always right and everybody's views are wrong. You have a problem listening to other people's opinions without being able to respect them instead you put them down and be all condescending and patronizing.
That's what in mythology,Eris did to start wars.

The old way of doing things aren't necessarily the right way of doing things.

no pun...I was referring to correct. and not right as in conservative political views

as for the stuff about Obama, I am not going to take your crap for gospel....especially when you're so biased like your FOX news.

I could really care less what you think,man......especially when you have a problem tolerating other people's views unless they are concurrent with your own ideology.

posted October 14, 2008 11:26 AM            

We're not going to change America into a little socialist gulag state to please you and the rest of the whiners including Barack Hussein O'Bomber, Bill Ayers, Reverrrrrend Wright, Michael Phleger and the host of other Marxist radicals.

posted October 16, 2008 09:40 AM            

When columbus landed for the first time, only 2 million natives lived in north america continent (US and canada) compared to approx 190 million in the more rich and thriving mexico and south america continent.

Of that 2 million only 5 percent survived the killings and diseases like measles etc brought by new immigrants from Europe.
But there were some of the 13 colonies lived in harmony and peace with the native indians. Remember the story of Pocohontos?

My Point is things were never good and we have taken baby steps until now. Today you may sound very intelligent talking how things should be, but reality is how can you change public opinion so fast?

Is Obama the one? He declined John's town hall meeting and flip flopped on how campaing should be run. Is that the change America needs? He has flip flopped so many times on military issues and he does not have a hang on economic issues like NAFTA etc. His dummy mate Biden wanted to divide Iraq in to three regions and favored credit card companies. Is that the change we need in America?

America has always been capitalist but Obama wants to make it an marxist economy now. When a country is rich, capitalism will automatically give birth to socialism. Take UK for example. With 10 trillion debt, how could a socialist/marxist economy make America more prosperous?

Oops got a call.... brb

posted October 16, 2008 05:41 PM            

People came to America from Europe for several reasons. How dare Obama brings European policies in to America?

Say no to Karl Marx, say no to screwed UK health policies, etc etc

We will never treat 'Das Capital' as bible in America.

posted October 16, 2008 10:32 PM            

Pay dues to politicians as much as required but don't get them in to your living room and let them control your thermostats , your televisions (referring to case in state of Missouri where they banned ads based on lies), control your success, etc, etc.

posted October 16, 2008 11:02 PM            

However the Britishers later tried to win over black slaves if they will fight with them against the colonists. They used the same tactics of divide and rule in India and so many other countries.

Its well documented why Jefferson didn't cover slavery in the declaration document.

quote:

---

In his original draft of the Declaration, Jefferson has listed the last grievance against the King of Great Britain as allowing slavery and the slave trade to continue and condemned the King for offering freedom to slaves who would fight on the side of Great Britain. The section dealing with slavery was removed because of the objections of the delegates from the southern states who attended the Congress. It was believed that it was better to remove the section dealing with slavery and gain the support for independence from the southern states, than risk a long debate over the issue of slavery even before out independence had been won from England

---