Obama’s Red Roots


Election ’08: The word is that Barack Obama is a mainstream politician who sometimes attracts fringe leftists. The record tells a different story – that he has sought out radicals. What does that say of his agenda?

It’s natural to be skeptical of excessive claims about Obama’s radical associations. After all, there are so many. But one bears attention – because it helped him get his start in politics. In 1996, he won an Illinois state senate seat on a “fusion” ticket of the Democratic Party and leftist group called the “New Party.”

The New Party, founded in 1992 with 7,000 members at its peak, had been an explicitly anti-capitalist party of ex-Communists, socialists and activists from ACORN, the hard-left group that’s constantly in trouble over voter fraud. The New Party didn’t ask for Obama’s association; he asked for the New Party’s endorsement.

Blogger Rick Moran of the American Thinker has found disturbing particulars. First, the New Party didn’t give its support and campaign volunteers to just anyone. Obama actually had to audition for it. According to a September-October 1995 update on the New Party-aligned Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Web site:

    “About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to . . . to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates.”

Anyone wanting a New Party endorsement had to “be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP,” the Web site said.

So Obama signed on with this group and now remains in its debt.

That raises questions about what was in the New Party platform that drew in Obama. Maybe its own statements saying it was formed “to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over the political process.”

Sound familiar? One of the few things Obama reveals in his vague “change” agenda are plans to punish corporations. He rails against “corporate profits” and even worked in a condemnation of them in his first defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So there’s little doubt he shares a lot of what the New Party believes.

The New Party also has advocated a bill of rights for children, a shorter work week, a universal “social” wage and military spending cuts. These will undermine parental rights, lower competitiveness, lard up welfare and make the U.S. less secure. All are echoed in Obama’s proposals. They are the hardest battle cries of the left.

Obama should come clean on why he sought these radicals’ support and, better still, disclose just how he intends to pay them back.

July 4, 2008 | 2 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. You would never realize or fully understand the communist roots of the Democratic Party, unless you actually work for a democratic corporation. True, they follow something that resembles ‘work ethics’, but makes a mockery of ‘morals and values’ by demoralizing employees with principles that clearly divide, rather than unite people. Without a Biblical foundation, democratic corporations have no foundation and FREEDOM is an illusion. Don’t kid yourselves – COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM ARE EXACTLY THE SAME! What is the cost of College/University? What is the cost of health care? What is the cost of housing/mortgages? What is the cost of energy? What happens when you can’t pay? The state police are sent to your door and you are forced from what you thought was your land and property. The democratic BANKERS made certain that CAPITALISM WOULD BE DESTROYED through legislation that would hurt Americans, such as HIGHER TAXES, opposing Biblical values like removing THE TEN COMMANDMENTS from our courts of law; removing the Cross; sucking a baby’s brains out through partial birth abortions; fighting for a man’s right to stick his penis up another man’s poop splattered anus; and basically advocatig everything tha demoralizes America and opposes Judeo-Christian values upon which all GOOD GOVERNMENT is based upon. Obama’s RED ROOTS is no surprise – since the RED SCARE during the 20th century, communists infiltrated the democratic party and democratic legislation and democratic banking to make sure America fell through its own institutions. Democrats assisted enemy nations by selling American corporations to foreign investors clearly bent on our demise – under the false pretenses of peace. Yes, Obama will spell: VICTORY FOR THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA AND ISRAEL! If Obama wins 2008, so does Americas enemies, as it was during the 1990s.

  2. Unless a miracle happens, Obama is a shoe-in. Once there, he will find it difficult to govern, if not impossible. The Congress will not support radical proposals of the sort outlined above, nor will the Supreme Court support certain aspects of that program like a bill of rights for children. He can stymie many programs, but in doing so, he will incur the wrath of the moderate democrats who will not want to lose power so fully as they did after Carter.

    Any serious and successful attempt to change the pro-business approach of America will end exceedingly quickly in disaster for the country. Any government program that does not reward individual and corporate efforts will bring this country to its knees – perhaps with the exceptions of health care and education. People work with the hope of gain; they stop working when they blame.

    For Israel, Obama will be a disaster. If he follows through on his policy of not supporting programs for new weapons, Israel will be faced with Russian and Chinese military technologies for which they will have to find their own answers, rather than buying American systems. Because Israel will have to upgrade its own systems, it will force Israel to become the most important supplier of weapons to the free world – not the best position for the Jewish People.

    The predictions that I proffered here are a mere tickling of the surface. The rattling of the American system will result in changes that cannot be predicted. Thus, anyone with an ounce of sense approaches “change” with fear and trembling. This touting of “change” if relegated to the world of ideas is harmless, but once Obama tries to implement “change” he will find that what happens is not what he bargained for, and not what America was seeking. Then the naivete of his call for “change” will become apparent. He must already know, being as intelligent as he is, that his call for “change” is mere demagoguery. Thus, he is more dangerous than anyone of importance has yet had the temerity to propose – whether he believes in “change” or not.