The Christian Post has a good breakdown and analysis of last night's presidential debate, a debate most observers agree was won by Mitt Romney hands down.
I guess the key question being asked though, is, "Will it matter?". Frankly, I don't think it will.
Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I still feel like Obama will end up winning in the end. This is the first of three debates. They still have two more debates coming up, dealing with social issues and foreign policy. Social issues like gay marriage and abortion "rights" are always a minefield for any Republican candidate, so I expect Obama to have the edge there. Foreign policy should be the President's strength since he has the power of incumbency and active foreign policy experience, as opposed to Romney, who might have some good ideas, but no actual experience in that area. This might seem to be an area of advantage for Obama, but his problem is that he actually has a foreign policy record to defend, and many areas for Romney to attack (such as the White House's dissembling, deceptive spinning of the story regarding the recent assassination of our ambassador to Libya [see stories here, and here on this, for example]).
Yes, I still think Obama will win, and I'll be shocked out of my mind if Romney pulls off the victory. But in the meantime, it's kinda fun to see so many liberals being quite uncomfortable, if not downright nervous — even panicky, at seeing that Romney might be more of a challenge to Obama this November than they thought.
Interestingly, I think one of the most telling comments in all this come from NBC's Tom Brokaw, who said that if Romney had performed like Obama did last night this thing would have been over. He's 100% right on that. The media would have pounced on Romney like jackals on a wounded deer, and essentially stuck the long knives into his campaign to try and finish him off. Now they cant quite do that — something, I firmly believe many of them were hoping, and still hope, to do so their guy can get re-elected.
At the end of the day, my position remains the same. No man has the answer to America's, or the world's, problems. I know who I'd prefer to see win this thing, but I'm not sure in the end it will really matter that much. At it's core, America's problems are neither social nor political; they are spiritual, and when all is said and done, if America continues to stray away from it's original biblical foundations and principles, we'll just continue to march headlong toward the day of destruction which is sure to come. Meanwhile, however, God bless America. And God help America.
So Obama's Healthcare Law has just been upheld. Amazing.
I have to agree with Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on this one: "This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land," Cuccinelli said in a statement. "The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government.
"This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines -- a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn't have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain," Cuccinelli continued. "Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything."
The decision means the historic overhaul will continue to go into effect over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.
I fail to see how the federal government can force citizens to buy any product from any private company and the Surpreme Court could consider it constitutional. Even more baffling is that the Supremes are upholding it as a tax... even though Obama himself specifically argued that it was NOT a tax!
Even more reason why Obama needs to go. Four more years of Obama and that will give him even more leeway to stack the court with liberal/leftist judges, who will make more liberal/left-leaning decisions, which will just hasten America's descent into God-knows-what. The New America is gradually taking shape right before our very eyes, and it's kinda scary to think what this New America will look like when we let the liberals in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government get their way.
Ironically,the swing vote here was from a supposedly "conservative" justice, John G Roberts Jr. Now If you cant even count on conservative justices to be truly conservative on important decisions like this, what will happen down the line when they retire and are replaced by decidedly more liberal justices? God help America, that's all I can say on that. God help America.
It'll be interesting to see... will this decision help or hurt Obama's reelection campaign in the long run? Will it energize his supporters to vote him into for another term? Or will it mobilize his opponents to make sure he doesnt stay in the White House past next January 19th? Of course, only time will tell. It's gonna be a wild and interesting ride, that's for sure.
It’s been a few days since the Presidents abominable endorsement
of homosexual marriage, and my spirit is still quite disturbed and disgusted by
what took place. The social, political, and spiritual ramifications of what the
president did are huge, and we’ll see this all unfold over time.
To me the most striking aspect to all this are the spiritual
ramifications of course, and especially
in these 2 respects:
A/ Obama used scripture and his supposed Christian faith to
justify his opposition to, AND his support of, homosexual
marriage. Talk about twisting scripture when it’s convenient!
B/ Obama is a pseudo-Christian, but has been defended and supported
by many pastors & preachers (especially among the black clergy in particular),
which is disturbing on multiple levels.
So allow me to start off my rant with this:
1/ When Obama said he opposed same sex marriage, he said it
was because of his biblical/Christian beliefs. But incredibly, when he decided
to come out and support gay marriage, he also used scripture to support his
belief. As USA
today, put it well:
In fact, one of
the most striking aspects of Obama's revelation on Wednesday that he and his
wife, Michelle, support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, is that he
invoked their Christian faith to support his views. In past years, Obama — as
many believers still do — had cited his religious beliefs to oppose gay
marriage. (See full article here. )
Barack Obama’s own
words:
“I believe that
marriage is the unionbetween a man and a
woman. Now, for me as a Christian…it is also a sacred union.
God’s in the mix.”-August 2008 / Interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Saddleback Church.
Yet in his interview with ABC News, he actually invokes the New
Testament “Golden Rule”
to support his new, “evolved” view:
“[Michelle and I] we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us
at odds with the views of others. But, you know, when we think about our faith,
the thing at root that we think about
is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden
Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.“And
I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me
as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those
precepts, the better I’ll be as a dad and a husband and, hopefully, the better
I’ll be as president,” May 9, 2012
So now the Golden
Rule (Matt 7:12/ Luke 6:31) is now to be used to support sexual immorality?
Wow. Just… wow. Lord help us.
[As an aside, Bear in mind
that Obama’s 2008 statement above was made while sitting on the platform in an Evangelical
church (so what else was he going to say in front of a buch of Evangelicals?)… Furthermore,
he was also running for office at the
time. That’s actually a big deal, since Obama had already been on record n
1996 as saying “I favor legalizing same-sex
marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such
marriages.” . This was said before he ran for US Senate and the presidency.
See here. ) There’s also evidence that Obama and/or his underlings lied about
it in 2011 when confronted with his own
words from 1996. See here)]
Anyway, moving on…
this just leads me to my other observation:
2A/ Obama is a fake Christian, and always was.
Personally, I’ve
NEVER believed Obama was a born again Christian. Not for a millisecond. The closest he’s come to any kind of Christian
experience is his membership in the church of pot-stirrer and racial agitator Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, a purveyor of Black Liberation Theology. Black Liberation Theology is, in essence, a
social/political gospel, not a true gospel of salvation.
Enough said on
that for now; however…
2B / Despite this man not showing any fruit of
being born again, Obama had (and presumably still has) widespread support of
many (most?) in the black clergy nationwide. And more than a few of them in
the past have bristled at the thought that anyone would question Obama’s
Christian faith. For example…
In the video
above we see Bishop TD Jakes saying he’s offended (!) by Rev. Franklin Graham
questioning Obama’s Christian faith, and even suggests Franklin should apologize! I wonder what
Jakes and others think now, since “Mr. Christian” Obama has now squarely come out
in favor of something God clearly considers to be an abomination.
In a nutshell, it’s
fairly obvious that many of these churches and their members voted in large
part based on racial considerations, rather than on any spiritual conviction. It’s
sad to me that pastors would come out and give their support to an ungodly man
simply because he’s “one of us”. But what does it say about the theological
grounding and/or discernment of these men, if they actually sincerely feel/felt
that Barack Obama is a born again Christian? Of course, as goes the shepherd,
so goes the sheep; thus, if the shepherds are clueless, what does that say for
their sheep? Nothing good, frankly.
Bottom line, the “black
church” as a whole is in trouble (or maybe I should say “a great many black
churches”, to be fair),. Blind sheep led by blind shepherds. I’m not saying that
to be harsh; just calling it like it is.
I do wonder now: how
long before the majority of black churches come out accepting or supporting
same-sex marriages? The Devil is definitely
working on that, so that may not be too far away.
Come Lord Jesus,
and rescue your people from this collective insanity, and this spirit of
darkness that is beginning to cover our land.
The Washington Free Beacon points out in this article that there’s a "stunning" lack of diversity in Obama’s campaign staff in Chicago.
A photo of Obama’s “army” originally posted on the campaign’s Tumblr site and run in conjunction with a BuzzFeed story on the Obama campaign reveals a stunning lack of diversity among the president’s Chicago staff.
The Obama campaign’s Chicago headquarters has it all—from Jack Daniels and Ping Pong to bouncy balls and ironic desk mementos.
Yet the “army of twenty-somethings” campaign manager Jim Messina has assembled in the president’s hometown is almost uniformly white, according to photos contained in a detailed BuzzFeed report Monday.
Further examination of the Obama’s campaign’s Tumblr site over the past month reveals very few black individuals—apart from the president and his wife, Michelle—in the pictures posted in the feed.
One of the only featured pictures to include a black individual is one from a recent White House visit by Star Trekactress Nichelle Nichols.
Rich irony indeed. Chicago
is 42% white, and 36.8 % black, but there’s nary a black face to be found at
the campaign headquarters of America’s
first black president. Is anyone surprised by this? Not me. The issue goes beyond just the Obama campaign, and to the very Democratic party itself.
I’m not a fan of “affirmative action” by any means, but it’s
ironic to me that in the party of affirmative action, the same party that likes
to paint the Republicans as racist (and yes, there are quite a few racists in the
Republican party, to be sure), they really don’t practice what they
preach when it comes to diversity. In general elections, blacks
tend to vote 90% + for the Democrats over Republicans, but have little to show
for it. For all the college-educated,
articulate, competent blacks who are mayors, state senators, and occupy many
many positions in state and local politics nationwide, where is the “affirmative action”
and push for “diversity” to open doors
to them to rise to national level politics? Where are the black governors, the black US senators?
Even in the upper levels of the Democratic National Committee,
African-Americans are woefully underrepresented relative to their percentage of
the population, and their overwhelming, support of the Democratic party as a group. Looks
to me like the party that likes to point fingers at Republicans &
conservatives on race issues needs to clean its own house first.
Let me start of by saying I was never one to believe all this "Obama is a secret muslim" stuff that's been going around the past year or two. And I still dont consider him a Mulsim. He identifies himself as a Christian and so I take that at face value. (Of course I don't consider him to be a true Christian by bible standards, but just in the nominal sense)
But Frank Gaffney of the Washington Post offers presents a though-provoking article on the topic. His argument is simple but cogent: If Bill Clinton was referred to by some of his admirers as "America's first black president" for his affinity to the black community and "black issues" , Obama could (should?) similarly be considered America's first Muslim president for his very clear affinity to the Muslim community. I guess it makes sense to some degree. You know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... that kind of thing. He's definitely been trying to appeal to (some would say "appease") the Muslim world, while taking a tough stance toward Israel up to this point. Definitely something to keep an eye on.
Obama aligns with the policies of Shariah-adherents
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. | Tuesday, June 9, 2009
During his White House years, William Jefferson Clinton -- someone Judge Sonia Sotomayor might call a "white male" -- was dubbed "America's first black president" by a black admirer. Applying the standard of identity politics and pandering to a special interest that earned Mr. Clinton that distinction, Barack Hussein Obama would have to be considered America's first Muslim president.
This is not to say, necessarily, that Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim any more than Mr. Clinton actually is black. After his five months in office, and most especially after his just-concluded visit to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, however, a stunning conclusion seems increasingly plausible: The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.
What little we know about Mr. Obama's youth certainly suggests that he not only had a Kenyan father who was Muslim, but spent his early, formative years as one in Indonesia. As the president likes to say, "much has been made" -- in this case by him and his campaign handlers -- of the fact that he became a Christian as an adult in Chicago, under the now-notorious Pastor Jeremiah A. Wright.
With Mr. Obama's unbelievably ballyhooed address in Cairo Thursday to what he calls "the Muslim world" (hereafter known as "the Speech"), there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself. Consider the following indicators:
by: Wilmer J. Leon III, Ph.D., t r u t h o u t | Perspective
On September 11, 1990, President George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech entitled "Toward a New World Order." In this speech he articulated the United States' objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states:
Until now, the world we've known has been a world divided - a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and Cold War. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
In the 20th and early 21st centuries, a number of world leaders, such as Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Mikhail Gorbachev, Henry Kissinger and Gordon Brown, have used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. When President Bush 41 used the term, his phrasing sent shock waves through the Christian and secular hard-right world, since for decades the phrase has been used to represent a collectivist One World Government.
Joseph Farah's article on WorldNetDaily.com begs a simple question: Why is there little or no media attention being paid to Barack Obama's call for a global regime?
Here is the quote, made in Prague on April 5th, 2009 : "All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. That’s why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course."
The Random House dictionary defines regime as:
1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime. 2. a ruling or prevailing system. 3. a government in power. 4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.
Thus, in this context, the meaning is fairly straightforward -- a global regime is a global system of government. These words are as significant as President George Bush's words in 1991 calling for a New World Order.
"Now, we can see a new world coming into view – a world in which there is the very real prospect of a New World Order."
Yet, Obama calls for a "stronger global regime", and the media is strangely silent. It just shows again that we can't wait for the media to be our watchdog. The fact is, they'll emphasize what they want to emphasize, and ignore what they want to ignore. We have to pay attention ourselves to what's going on.
I fully expect to hear more globalist/New World Order talk in the coming years from Obama and his administration.
One thing is for sure. 2008 was the year journalistic integrity died. If anyone seriously thought we had an objective media before, the 2008 presidential campaign proved to us just how much of a left wing/liberal slant the media has. It got to the point where some of them didn’t even try to pretend to be fair and balanced.
John McCain? Nice guy I suppose, but 2008 probably just wasn’t going to be his year, media bias or not. Short of having Jesus Christ as his running mate, it just wasn’t going to happen for him. But he certainly carried himself with dignity, so I give him kudos for that (although I thought he should have spoken up more when some of the unnamed aides close to him were throwing Sarah Palin under the bus)
Frankly, it’ll be interesting to see how long he honeymoon lasts. The media likes to build people up and then turn on them like a pack of wolves when they smell blood. This same media that helped build up Barack Obama as the rising star during the early campaign was circling like a pack of hungry wolves when the Jeremiah Wright story looked like it might seriously damage or kill his campaign in early 2008.
Obama has expectations on him that are beyond anything we’ve ever seen for any incoming president – expectations that are, as a whole, simply unrealistic. The fact is, as president you can’t please everyone, and tough choices have to be made, so it’s guaranteed that many of his supporters are going to be disappointed (or upset) when he doesn’t do some things they want him to, or does some things they don’t want him to. I certainly want him to do well, but it’ll be interesting to see how the slanted media and the left wing political crowd handles it when he has his share of stumbles, as every president does.
As a conservative Christian, there’s a lot to be concerned about with an Obama presidency. His very liberal tendencies are something to keep an eye on as well as his Socialist ties from the past (although the media buried that story). But in the end, we’re stuck with Obama for the next 4 years at least. I wasn’t a fan, and still am not, but whether you wanted him as president or not, he is our leader now, and we should all wish him success. His success will be good for America. If he does badly, America will do badly.
It’s clear to me though, that no matter who is president, those who are pushing for a one world government will still have their way, regardless of what party is in power. Look for more of the same in terms of the North American Union, and the formation of regional political/economic blocs such as the African Union, Mercosur, etc. The march toward a New World Order will continue without missing a beat.
So having said all that, here we are, 1-21-09, the first full day of a new regime. I’m still getting used to the idea of saying President Obama, after saying President Bush for the past eight years. Like him or not, the fact is,we should all recognize that this is a big deal in terms of America’s racial healing, which is still an ongoing process. It was only a generation ago (1968) that Martin Luther King got assassinated for seeking racial equality in this country. In the 60’s blacks in some part of he country were still fighting for their voting rights, lynching in the South were still a risk for blacks and even those whites who marched side-by-side with them for equality. There are some still alive today who still carry in their bodies the scars of bite marks from police dogs, when all they were doing is protesting injustice. It must have been unthinkable to them at that time that a generation later some of those same people would live to see an African-American man sworn in as president. I’m not a fan of Obama’s politics, but I couldn’t help but smile when I saw him being sworn in. America has come a long way in a relatively short time. God bless America.
And Christians… lets not forget to pray for President, Barack Hussein Obama. It’s not just a suggestion -- it’s a biblical command:
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
So Obama did it. Congratulations to him for running such an effective campaign and historic campaign. None of us knows for sure what the future holds for an Obama campaign, but for sure, it's a new day in America. All of us should wish him the best, and much success. His success is our success, whether we voted for him or not, our president will deserve our full support.
I don't see how he could possibly live up to the unreasonably high expectations people have placed on him. And it's a little sad to me that so many people put more of their faith and confidence in politicians to improve their lives, while not trusting in God, who is in control of all things.
However, lets all wish President Obama the best... and may God continue to bless America.
Mbijiwe Mwenda says we are being naive to ignore Barack Obama’s ties to a dangerous Kenyan politician. Mbijiwe Mwenda is a voice crying in the wilderness—from the other side of the world.
The Kenyan pastor, founder of Glory Cathedral Church in Nairobi, does not have a voice on CNN or Fox News. But he has been warning Christians during a recent visit to the United States that more is at stake in the 2008 election than anyone supposed.
“Many Americans do not seem to realize the price that has been paid for your freedom,” Mwenda says. “I am afraid we are about to lose the America we have known in the past—the America that has been a hope for the world.”
Mwenda’s main concern: That Democratic presidential challenger Barack Obama has a cozy relationship with Raila Odinga, an avowed Marxist politician who now serves as Kenya’s prime minister. Obama, who made taxpayer-funded visits to Kenya in 2004, 2005 and 2006, campaigned for Odinga in 2006.
During public appearances in Kenya, Odinga introduced Obama as his cousin. But later a family member denied that claim, saying that Odinga and Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., simply came from the same village. Both Obama Sr. and Odinga are from the Luo tribe, Kenya’s third largest.
When Odinga ran for president of Kenya last year and lost by a slim margin, tribal violence erupted amid claims of voter fraud. About 1,500 people died (many were killed in machete attacks), hundreds of churches were burned and 600,000 villagers were displaced. The international community had to broker a peace deal, allowing Odinga to serve as prime minister while his opponent, Mwai Kibaki, was named president.
Today, Odinga hopes that Obama will win the White House on Nov. 4 to boost support for his bid to become president of Kenya in 2012.
Pastor Mwenda says he is amazed that Americans don’t seem concerned that Obama is tied to Odinga. He rattled off a list of facts that Charisma has verified:
· Odinga was trained in communist ideology in Europe and holds Marxist views. “He even named his son Fidel Castro,” Mwenda says. · He has obvious ties to Muslim interests and even received funding for his presidential campaign from Libya. Although he officially claims to be an Anglican, Mwenda says, “[Odinga] has been very sympathetic to Muslims and some say he is a Muslim secretly.” · Odinga fits in nicely with Arab leaders’ plans for Africa. When they convened in Nigeria in 2001, they released a statement indicating that Kenya is to play a key role in spreading Islam throughout southern Africa. Says Mwenda: “Odinga is a dangerous man. A dictator.” · Odinga has promised to enact Sharia law in “Muslim declared regions” of Kenya—meaning that pork would be outlawed, women could not drive and crimes would be punished according to Islamic tradition.
So why did Obama campaign for Odinga? Independent journalists around the world have been asking that question since 2006. Paula Abeles of African Press International wrote in August: “Clearly Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists. … Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of U.S. national security.”
Many Kenyans are proud that a son of Kenya has a shot at the White House. But Kenya’s evangelical Christians are less enthusiastic. Like Mwenda, many of them are also troubled that Obama’s paternal grandmother has publicly stated that she sacrifices chickens and pours libations daily when praying for Obama to win the election. “She has been doing this since the [Democratic] primaries,” Mwenda says.
“Something is about to go wrong in your country,” Mwenda warned me.
I know many people who read my column will assume I am only writing it to boost John McCain’s chances at the polls next week. Some of my critics have also assumed that I must have racist tendencies if I am not voting for Barack Obama.
They can assume what they want, but the truth is that I have made eight trips to Africa in the last seven years and it is my second home. I will return there in early 2009. If my situation allowed it I would move there permanently—I love the people, the culture and what the Holy Spirit is doing all over that beautiful continent.
This week I did my own informal poll of African church leaders in Nigeria and Kenya. What I found was that none of them support Obama. Like many American Christians, they are staunchly pro-life, they defend traditional marriage and they certainly do not support politicians who don’t take the threat of militant Islam seriously.
They have seen enough torched churches and amputated arms to know better. They have seen Christian children thrown into the bottom of wells to die. They have seen Shariah law cast a dark pall over whole regions. They have watched as Middle Eastern governments pour millions of dollars into their local economies to build mosques and infrastructure and to buy votes.
I asked Pastor Mwenda how American Christians should pray in light of this sobering information. He told me: “I am praying that Obama does not win the White House. It is never too late for God. We can turn the tide. We need to pray: ‘Our Father, Who art in heaven, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.’ We must not allow anything in this nation that is not in His will.”
J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma. Many people responded to his column last week, and to the column by Kimberly Daniels that he attached to his message.
Editor's note: The original version of this column erroneously stated that there were 150,000 killed in Kenya's recent wave of post-election violence. The number was supposed to be 1,500. We regret the error. International news sources have reported various figures, some as low as 500 all the way to 1,500.
Well, maybe you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.
Now Barack Obama is "ridiculing" McCain's contention that he's socialist?
-------
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Barack Obama accused Republican rival John McCain on Wednesday of stooping to low tactics by labeling the Democrat a socialist. "I don't know what's next," Obama, the presidential candidate, said at an outdoor rally in North Carolina. "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."
Who is this man kidding? Obama's socialist connections from the past have been well documented, including the information on his membership in the socialist New Party in his early days in Chicago politics. This blog has painstakingly documented that information HERE.
And how about his own words where he said he sough out Marxist professors in his college days? This is from his own book, as this FoxNews article spells out:
Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Of course, the Che Guevara flags in his Houston campaign office (see above) should have been a red flag way back in February of this year, as WorldNetDaily reported in this article:
I'm convinced that if the media were doing it's job of properly vetting Obama and shining a light on his questionable past, John McCain would be certainly leading in the polls right now. Of course, it would have also helped if McCain had run a more effective campaign.
Never before has the United States of America had a president who was previously a member of a socialist party. In January 2009, Barack Obama could become the first.
The mainstream media is hiding from this story. But here are the facts:
Below is DOCUMENTED PROOF of Barack Obama’s past membership in the socialist New Party, in Chicago.
Link: Newspaper showed Obama belonged to socialist party
Copies of the New Party News,the party's official newspaper, have been found,which show a photo of Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party Member, and include quotes from him.
The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards.
**********
Archived page from NewParty.org, which speaks of Obama as being a New Party member.
New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races:
Illinois:Three NP-members won Democratic primarieslast Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
“New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.”
**********
Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website speaks of Obama as being a New Party member:
Secondly, the NP's '96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude. Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee. Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis.Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
**********
Obama was not just “associated” with the party. To run on their party line he had to be approved by a New Party committee and sign a contract with them.
“Candidates must 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 New Party was the creation of the quasi-Marxist Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical community organization ACORN. The DSA is associated with the Socialist International, the worlds largest organization of socialist and Marxist political parties worldwide.Related links
“A spokesman for the Obama campaign insists his candidate ran as a Democrat in that race and said, "Don't believe the trash you read on the Internet."
Note:The rep did not deny that Obama ran on the New Party line, but simply stated that he ran as a Democrat. This answer is misleading because in fact Obama ran both as a Democrat AND a New Party member.
**********
INTERESTING NOTE:
Three organizations, the controversial leftist community activist group ACORN, Project Vote, and The New Party were found to all share the same address in New York:
Fox News.com is the first major news outlet to touch on the issue of Barack Obama's former membership in the socialist New Party back in the 1990's:
Documents have surfaced suggesting that Obama was a member of the socialist New Party during his 1996 run for the Illinois Senate. The New Party was an offshoot of the Democratic Socialists Party of America, or DSA. The Power Line blog links to several Internet pages supporting the claim.
A Progressive Populist article in November of 1996 said, "New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago."
An archived page from the New Party's Web site in October 1996 says, "Three N.P. members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day [including] Barack Obama."
Obama's campaign responded, and basically lied to us. As the same Fox News article reports:
A spokesman for the Obama campaign insists his candidate ran as a Democrat in that race and said, "Don't believe the trash you read on the Internet."
This is deceptive because yes, Obama ran as a Democrat, but he also ran as a member of the New Party, as a "fusion candidate" .
What's a fusion candidate? Here's an explanation:
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. (from http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913)
This video was done in the lead-up to the May 2008 West Virginia primary. Very disturbing to say the least. I'm not an Obama supporter by any means, but stuff like this almost makes me want him to win in November, just so he can stick it to the narrow-minded racists like the ones in this video.
Posts
