Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Was Obama a Member of the Socialist "New Party"?

I've been attempting to shine light on Obama's hidden Marxist past, so I've been excited to see a buzz in the blogosphere today about Obama's affiliation with a socialist party called the New Party. See here, here and here, for example.

I just wanted to mention that this month's issue of the invaluable Commentary Magazine has the low-down on Obama and the New Party (and much more) in an article entitled Obama's Leftism, which I have linked to before. The article should be mandatory reading for all Americans. In any event, here's the excerpt on Obama and the New Party:

In his campaign for the Illinois senate, Obama was endorsed by the New Party (NP), a coalition of socialists, Communists, and other leftists. According to the newsletter of the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, whose members were said to constitute 15 percent of the Chicago New Party, “Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP [which] mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.” Apparently, Obama signed such a pledge. After winning the primary (unopposed because his lawyers had succeeded in knocking all three opponents off the ballot), he appeared at a New Party membership meeting to voice his thanks.

Amazing, isn't it? Four weeks to go and a socialist with a 20-year membership in a black supremacist church is the odds on favorite to be president.


1Peter3:15 said...

The problem I see with this approach to politics is that it doesn't have anything to do with the problems facing voters. I doubt there is anything to this story. But even if there was anything to the story, why not talk about Obama's proposed policies? If there is something "Marxist" about them, call it out and discuss what is wrong with those policies. The focus by the McCain campaign and this blog on these arguments is I think an admission that the voters are not buying into the McCain policies.

1Peter3:15 said...

Also, check the premise here, namely that the New Party is "socialist".

Grimmy said...


A politician who's working so hard to hide his past, distance himself from known associates as soon as they become inconvenient to his current needs, ect etc, is a politician who will have no problem telling you what he believes you want to hear in order to gain his goal.

He's a lair. Nothing about him is honest. He has zero integrity.

So, if you are actually capable of critical thought, ask yourself... what is his real goal? And, how can you believe a word that comes out of his mouth now, while he is engaged in pursuit of that goal?

Tyrants only come to power on the backs of idiots.

1Peter3:15 said...

"if you are actually capable of critical thought"

It is a shame that you cannot debate an issue in a civil manner.

Grimmy said...


Debate is a game played where both parties must adhere to rules regarding actual true fact and hold to integrity in their arguments.

Anyone pouring out the mindless drivel you'd dumped in the comments on this issue demonstrate that you have zero actual comprehension of the actual true facts and no real interest in anything other than attempting to automatically attempt to deny anything that challenges your preconceived and incredibly ignorant devotion to a man that has an overwhelmingly overt association with those proven to hate the US and wish it destroyed.

I have never been so feeble and intellectually inbred as to assume that debate with someone who aligns himself with an obvious enemy of this country is anything other than an game played by idiots.

Now, of course, this blog is the property of Neocon Latina. If she finds my comment offensive, I have no doubt that she'll do what ever she feels appropriate.

Neocon Latina said...


It boils down to this: you think discussing Obama's relationships with terrorists and racists is merely a "distraction" from the so-called "real issues." But to many people, being friends with an America-hating terrorist, and having a racist, America-hating mentor, is very much a "real issue."

We don't necessarily have to agree with our preferred candidate on every issue. But there must be an implicit level of trust where we feel that, whatever our policy differences, we still trust that the candidate is fundamentally "one of us." That feeling is entirely missing with Obama. It is simply mystifying that a guy with his sort of radical, America-hating background is anywhere near the levers of power, let alone poised to become our next president in a matter of weeks.

Ultimately, what I think this illustrates is not that Americans are in fact ok with a candidate of his background, but that the media has effectively covered the issue up. Even putting aside the Wright and Ayers stuff, there is simply no way this country would knowingly elect someone who was a member of a socialist party in the 1990s.

Grimmy said...

Neocon Latina:

I do apologize for coming in hot like I did.

Long night of reading up on the ACORN vote fraud issue, and other things got to me.

Our system is being deliberately undermined by people with hostile intent.

Anyway, I was out of line. Wont happen again.