Socialism is Un-American & Barack Obama is a Socialist
Ergo, Barack Obama is Un-American.
Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.
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…
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…?
Newspaper shows Obama belonged to socialist party
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party’s aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.
Obama’s campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party.
…
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists for America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.
New Party – October 1996 Update
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last 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).
CPUSA [Communist Party USA] 2008 Electoral Policy
Barack Obama’s campaign has so far generated the most excitement, attracted the most votes, most volunteers and the most money. We think the basic reason for this is that his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change…
Hello, America! Is anyone awake in there? The American COMMUNIST PARTY is excited about this Nation’s leading Presidential candidate because “his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change”. Unity and progressive change may sound nice falling out the mouths of average Americans, but out of the mouths of communists, neither of these are good for anyone.
Barack Obama is a demonstrable socialist. Unless one sincerely believes socialism is preferrable to American capitalism, I cannot fathom how one could, with good conscience, cast a vote for the radical, wealth-spreading, messiah complex-ed, Robin Hood wannabe, infantacide enthusiast, Barack Obama.
Good post, I appreciate the information. I, too, have always felt as though Obama was a European-style socialist– that’s why he recently went to Europe, to campaign. What other American politician ever went to Europe to campaign for U.S. president? I feel as though the entire left-wing of the Democratic party (hopefully it’s not all left-wing, but I fear it is) is on the side of the past in every area of policy.
You are so right!
But McCain is not the solution. McCain’s a socialist too.
Please vote for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Why vote for McCain? He voted for the bailout, just like Obama. And both McCain and Obama voted for US government investment in big commercial banks, which is socialist. The government owning banks is Socialism, maybe even Communism.
Why not send a message to both parties that it is time to vote on principles? YES, we should!
Only Bob Barr is moral enough and conservative enough to deal with the issue of housing, Wall Street, and the rest of the current mess. He has not taken a cent from Fannie or Freddie or from any of the Wall Street firms that profit from the bailout. And Bob Barr has the support of Rep. Ron Paul, who did so well in the Republican primary debates.
Here’s Bob’s Web site: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/
[Ginormous press release deleted by Jim B. I'm sure you can find it at Barr's site.]
It’s been said that a socialist is someone who will give away everything they don’t own.
I have actually heard talk that some Christians think Obama’s belief of spreading the wealth is more biblical. For anyone who still believes that socialism is “Christian”, because it is similiar to what the disciples did in Acts, by selling what they owned and sharing the wealth among themselves, I would like to point out the big difference:
Socialism means that if you’ve run out of Halloween candy, and a child comes to your door with a full bag of it, you can take it all from him, and tell him that you’ve run out. Rather than go and get some more yourself, you explain to the child that he has to replenish your supply so that you can redistribute it among the other kids that are going to come to your door. While that might sound like a good lesson in sharing, in fact, you are giving something away that isn’t yours.
The other example is similar:
A couple goes into a restaurant, and the server is wearing an Obama buttton. He goes out of his way to give them good service. Knowing that his candidate Obama believes in redistributing the wealth, however, they tell the server they are going to give his tip to a homeless man outside the restaurant, assuming that will make him happy. However, the waiter is furious instead, at what is rightfully his being given to someone without his consent.
The Christians in Acts willingly sold and shared what was their own to help each other. Voluntarily sharing our excess with others less fortunate is biblical. Big difference in that, and Obama’s plan of involuntarily confiscating the money of those who have worked hard to make something for themselves, and letting clueless bureaucrats decide what to do with it instead. After a 700 billion dollar bailout, rewarding folks who whose greed got them and our economy into trouble in the first place, does anyone honestly think Obama’s tax plan is going to help the folks who really deserve it?
If we want to look at the complete history of biblical times, we can see that the Roman government placed such a heavy tax burden upon the the people of their empire that it ultimately stifled all individual initiative. People had to depend upon the changing whims of the rulers to even survive. I sincerely hope that anyone, (regardless of their former loyalty to the Democratic party), who believes Obama’s economic policies are really going to benefit the majority of hard working Christians, who do spend and give wisely, will think twice before voting for him.