Lindaland
  Global Unity 2.0
  Can We Call Him a Socialist Now?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Can We Call Him a Socialist Now?
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5309
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 25, 2012 10:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmm, Obama Headlined a DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA Event in 1996
Now they tell us!
Jim Hoft
05/25/2012
Can we call him a socialist now???

Barack Obama headlined a Democrat Socialists of America town hall meeting in Chicago in 1996.
Buzzfeed reported:

And don't forget about this...

Barack Obama was also a member of the socialist New Party in Chicago back in the 1990's.

Barack Obama was a leader in the communist-affiliated progressive groups in Chicago throughout the 1990's when he first moved to the Windy City.

So, really... Can we call him a socialist now?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51776

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 32928
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted May 25, 2012 11:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
WOWSER
Jwhop You know what strikes me as very interesting? Why is this stuff coming out now?

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5309
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 26, 2012 07:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Best guess...and it is a guess Ami:

The main stream..lame stream..media protected O'Bomber before the 2008 election, didn't vet him, didn't look in O'Bomber's past, in his closets, under his bed, at his associates and this little Marxist Socialist Progressive twit got elected. Remember how the idiots in the idiot press tried to destroy Joe the Plumber when he told O'Bomber his "spread the wealth around" comment sounded like "Socialism"? Well, it IS Socialism. No where in the US constitution is the government empowered to take money from one person or group to hand it off to another person or group.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
Karl Marx

Then, this kind of stuff started being found. I'd guess it's been laying around in filing cabinets waiting for this election.

Btw, the idiot press is still trying to protect O'Bomber so don't expect to see..or hear anything about O'Bomber's Marxist present or past on broadcast television or in the Treason Times or Washington ComPost!

IP: Logged

Emeraldopal
Knowflake

Posts: 1597
From: U
Registered: Apr 2011

posted May 27, 2012 10:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Emeraldopal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I really don't
understand why
people can't see
what has been
right in front of
them....

money can buy
you anything. ...

even a Presidency... .

and we all know
those who are
really in Power
have all the Money
and Control
over things

what they don't
realize,
is that it's an
Illusion..

and they Control
Nothing...

we are all connected..
we hold the Power
together
for
the Ggod of ALL. ...

------------------
All my love, with all my Heart
lotusheartone

IP: Logged

katatonic
Knowflake

Posts: 8156
From:
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 03, 2012 07:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for katatonic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
the stuff is coming out now because it's campaign season. sorry it's not more dramatic and delusional...

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 32928
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted June 03, 2012 07:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by katatonic:
the stuff is coming out now because it's campaign season. sorry it's not more dramatic and delusional...

Kat, you are missing the pregnant point. It didn't come out IN the last campaign season. Wake up and smell the coffee

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5309
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2012 10:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
O'Bomber is a liar! All the Socialists around O'Bomber are liars!

O'Bomber is exactly what I said he is from the time I first heard him speak as a candidate. He's a lying Marxist Socialist Progressive empty suit.

The only way O'Bomber ever became president was by lying to the American people. It's clear now...and it's becoming more clear to many more people, day by day that O'Bomber is totally unfit for the office of president.

June 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Obama’s Third-Party History
New documents shed new light on his ties to a leftist party in the 1990s.
By Stanley Kurtz

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New (Socialist) Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social (Socialist) democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

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. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

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.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”

We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.

The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.

When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”

This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.

In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.

In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.

At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo 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. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, 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.

Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social (Socialist) 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..(Socialism).

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 (Socialism) substantially to the left of the Democratic party.

To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.

I have more to say on 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. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.

In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist (Socialist) third party, and that he hid that truth (lied) from the American people in order to win the presidency.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz#

IP: Logged

Ami Anne
Moderator

Posts: 32928
From: Pluto/house next to NickiG
Registered: Sep 2010

posted June 07, 2012 11:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ami Anne     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
YES, this is what I was talking about on the Bill Clinton thread, Jwhop!

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal


http://www.mychristianpsychic.com/

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6057
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2012 11:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Red herring. It's as simple as that.

I still recall that prior to the last election there was concern expressed by some that he'd be too far left for governance. I assured those around that any elected President with around 50% of the vote still isn't endorsed by two-thirds of the potential electorate. No one's going to let a President get too radical, and no one has. In fact, Republicans in Congress have been loathe to work with him on the vast majority of issues facing the nation, so things have been quite contentious for most of his time in office.

Same as our previous conversation about Hitler being a Socialist, it's just not born out in the actions of the person. One can't take Hitler's governance as a reasonable approximation of a Socialist state, nor can one claim Obama's administration represents any sort of true Socialist governing body. It's just not objectively rational by any measure. Even the biggest so-called Socialist act of this administration hinges on an idea conjured up by Republicans, and previously enacted by their own candidate in this race.

Red herring.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5309
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2012 11:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

O'Bomber is so far left he has one foot hanging off the left edge of the earth. Oh, and btw, O'Bomber isn't "governing". He's attempting to "RULE" and that's not working out so hot for him. Bypassing Congress at every opportunity is not "governing". It's attempting a "one man RULE". Pull your head out of your ass.

His associations are coming to light and this election, he's not going to be able to hide them. More than 50% of Americans already believe O'Bomber IS a Socialist. About 70%+ believe America is on the wrong track.

Good luck with your Marxist hero worship!

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6057
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2012 12:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Blah blah blah...some stuff, different day. Your ranting and raving is noted. It doesn't diminish the truth of what I've posted. Sorry.

The only people here with heroes to worship are on your side of the aisle.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 5309
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2012 12:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There isn't any truth in what you've said.

On the other hand, what I said is the truth. O'Bomber has bypassed Congress with appointments and that's an attempt at "one man RULE. That's hardly an attempt at "governing". Not in our system of government! Further, O'Bomber is simply RULING by Executive Order through Executive branch agenicies when he can't get his legislation passed by Congress. That's not governing..in our system of government. That's an attempt at one man RULE.

The more you talk, the more your ignorance shines through.

Again, pull your head out of your ass.

IP: Logged

AcousticGod
Knowflake

Posts: 6057
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted June 07, 2012 12:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AcousticGod     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is, JWhop. If you could disprove what I've said, you would, but instead you pontificate.

You're not in a position to make the case regarding Obama making appointments considering the record breaking amount of blocking this Congress has imposed. If people are trying to rule, it's Congressional Republicans that are trying to hold everything hostage.

    Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say -it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story_1.html

quote:
The more you talk, the more your ignorance shines through.

Again, pull your head out of your ass.


Know thyself, Jwhop.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2012

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a