Proof Obama Was Member Of Socialist 'New Party' In 1996

[Warph]

These articles were written BEFORE Obama was elected president but were somehow covered up.



From the "American Thinker": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html

Barack Obama entered electoral politics as a member of a radical marxist group aimed at gaining control of the Democratic Party in order to implement a hardline version of socialism in America. He signed a contract promising to maintain a visible relationship. The candidate should be pressed by McCain/Palin to reveal that contract and proclaim his adherence to New Party goals before the American people approve him for our hifghest office.


==========================================================================
From the Human Events/The RedState:   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26913

.....nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement.  The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party.  Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to.  The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.

Barack Obama, not needing to, chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists.  As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals.  Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with.  What does that say about Barack Obama, who chose to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism?

[Diane Amberg]

Unless you are planning to start a movement to have him impeached, why is this important now? We've moved on. And no I will not call you a Rebumlican...that wouldn't be nice. But it is funny.

[Warph]

Unless you are planning to start a movement to have him impeached, why is this important now? We've moved on. And no I will not call you a Rebumlican...that wouldn't be nice. But it is funny.

That's the problem.... too many "slackers" have moved on! 

[Diane Amberg]

You seem angry...a lot.

[Jo McDonald]

It seems to me that a lot of us should be "angry"  and not just passive, as so many seem to be.

[Varmit]

Unless you are planning to start a movement to have him impeached, why is this important now? We've moved on. And no I will not call you a Rebumlican...that wouldn't be nice. But it is funny.

Are you serious???  Who has moved on...over 750 Tea Parties across the nation and you honestly think we've moved on?....Our Constitution is being violated more than ever before and you ask why this is important??  Are you serious???

[Diane Amberg]

The tea parties were just fine, that's a very acceptable thing, that IS moving on. I just don't see why anybody's long past history is still important 3 months after the election. The Democrats didn't keep pounding that Bush was a drunk and an alcoholic long after the election was over. Someone could have kept stirring that pot for years!  I'm glad "they" didn't. It's just not good for the country, especially the kids, to hear that stuff over and over and over. That's how hate gets taught.

[Wilma]

"Our constitution is being violated more than ever before"--key words--"ever before".  It isn't like this has never happened before.  We have weathered a lot of bad decisions in the past and we have survived.  Why should be get so upset over this one?

Right on, Diane.  Let's get our kids all riled up and worried about their futures while they are still 6 years old.  They don't have enough stress already.

[Varmit]

Bush's being an alcoholic was not a preview or pretext of how he was going to govern.  As far as people still "stirring the pot" we STILL hear the left and right BUSH BASHING.  Yes, our Constitution has been violated in the past but not with such verocity.  The only reason we were able to withstand it in the past is because of patriotic Americans who were willing to stand up for what is right, even though it might not have been the popular thing to do.  Nowadays, most people in this country don't have the guts to do that, or their eyes are closed to what is happening.  They would rather believe the so call "unbiased" mainstream media that has made obama out to be the messiah.  They don't realize who it was that mentored him, and the extreme anti American views he carries.  They would rather stay asleep to the facts.  As far as our children are concerned, they need to know the truth about this country, not be infected with the liberal, socialist crap that passes for education these days.

The key words are "our Constitution is being violated.."  I spoke out when bush did it, and I will continue to do it with obama, as should all Americans, those that aren't asleep anyway.

[frawin]

The tea parties were just fine, that's a very acceptable thing, that IS moving on. I just don't see why anybody's long past history is still important 3 months after the election. The Democrats didn't keep pounding that Bush was a drunk and an alcoholic long after the election was over. Someone could have kept stirring that pot for years!  I'm glad "they" didn't. It's just not good for the country, especially the kids, to hear that stuff over and over and over. That's how hate gets taught.

I am trying to avoid the Politcal arguments but this one was to much. Daine, the reason that the Dems/Liberals/left couldn't keep saying Bush was a drunk, is because he wasn't.
Now tell me that Obama didn't attend Church for 20 years and worship under the Racist, hate America, the Reverend Jeremiah Wrigt. That fact alone should have kept this man from even being considered for President of this great Nation.