“But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned;

if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity;

but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

Ezekiel 33:6


"A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring."

Proverbs 25:26

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PROOF: Obama lied! He was a former member of the Socialist 'New Party'


OBAMA'S THIRD-PARTY HISTORY

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 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 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.


OBAMA WAS A MEMBER OF THE FAR-LEFT ‘NEW PARTY’


President Barack Obama has been challenged before about his alleged ties to the “New Party,” a far-left political group that once served as a third party option in the American political schema. Last month, The Blaze highlighted some images that seemed to corroborate the president’s alleged past ties to groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and, alas, the New Party, despite his campaign’s 2008 denial that he was a member of the movement.
As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.
It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:
New Documents Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the New Party
Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:
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.
Here’s a screen shot showcasing the “Fight the Smears” denial:
New Documents Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the New Party
Minutes from a January 11, 1996 meeting, Kurtz claims, prove Obama’s affiliation with the group. The New Party‘s Chicago Chapter had apparently recorded the president’s extensive involvement, including a purported request that he be endorsed by the movement.
“Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions,” the minutes read. “He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.”

This seems consistent with the above image, which shows that Obama was, indeed, endorsed by the New Party. And, according to Kurtz, a 1997 roster from the group’s Chicago chapter also shows him to be a member. The commentator continues, highlighting Obama’s other purported ties to the group:
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.
Read more about Obama’s alleged connections to the New Party here.


OBAMA APPARENTLY SPOKE AT A 1996 EVENT HOSTED BY A SOCIALIST GROUP


President Barack Obama has very frequently come under fire for purportedly embracing socialist ideals. While some have called these characterizations unfair, others have continued to maintain that Obama’s ideals dance on a line that very easily earns him such a distinction. Now, an alleged 1996 advertisement from the Hyde Park Herald, a community newspaper in Chicago, touts an appearance by Obama at an event sponsored by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), among other groups.
BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski says that the ad is “a reminder that the President presented himself as much more progressive during his time in Chicago.” Now, it’s important to note that Obama appeared with other professors and experts on the panel and according to the ad, the discussion, entitled, “Employment and Survival in Urban America,“ was centered upon ”economic insecurity.”
Here’s the ad in question:
Flyer Shows Barack Obama Spoke at 1996 Socialist Event
This isn‘t the first time that purported evidence of Obama’s attachment to socialist organizations has emerged. In the past, he has been accused of having ties to the Chicago New Party, a leftist political movement that many on the right — and left — have derided as fringe (the group is no longer operational). This photo was purportedly found on the front page of a New Party News pamphlet back in 1996:
Flyer Shows Barack Obama Spoke at 1996 Socialist Event
In 2008, as Gateway Pundit has noted, Obama’s “Fight the Smears” web site tackled the issue of the New Party and attempted to dismiss any notion that he was an affiliated member:

Right-wing hatchet man and conspiracy theorist, Stanley Kurtz is pushing a new crackpot smear against Barack falsely claiming he was a member of something called the New Party.
But the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.

This particular newspaper blurb doesn’t claim that Obama is a member, but it does seem — at least based on the print — that the politician was welcoming of the New Party’s endorsement. This, in itself, though, doesn’t provide evidence that the president was an actual member of a socialist group. Instead, it shows that there was an affiliation and a relationship of some sort.
Gateway Pundit goes on to share other evidence that is believed to validate that a meaningful relationship existed between Obama and the fringe New Party. But beyond these elements, other comments the president has made over time have created some questions worth asking.
Consider Obama’s call in 2007 for universal healthcare – yet another incident that seemed to add to the narrative that he endorses, or is at least sympathetic to, socialistic ideals.
“The time has come for universal health care in America,” the then-candidate proclaimed at a Families USA conference on health care. ”I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country.”
None of these elements offer definitive proof of a socialistic mindset, but they do raise questions — questions that will likely re-emerge and continue to swirl during the 2012 presidential campaign.



[source]
*
**

KEYWORD SITE SEARCH:

ARCHIVE ARTICLES:

CONNECT WITH THE PATRIOT SHEEPDOG:

Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic     Image and video hosting by TinyPic