As a preface to this series of articles, major kudos need to be awarded to Ms Placed Democrat, Matthew Weaver, Shtuey, Eastan McNeil, Steve Diamond, Christmas Ghost, RabbleRouser Rev. Amy, and especially John W. for all the research that has gone into these separate pieces of the puzzle.  Please visit their sites and thank them for the hours they toiled increasing everyone’s knowledge of the Obamanation.

Without the amazing tenacity of these individuals, (and a few unnamed), connecting the dots of the socialist agenda for the “New Democratic Party” would not have been accomplished.  I have tried to organize the articles in the series based on the timeline I have been able to put together according to all the research that has been provided. I am sure there are gaps and possible inconsistencies that will be pointed out by my astute readers, as we are all trying to piece this puzzle together from the smoke and mirrors that Barack Obama has created to hide his true past and real agenda.  We were all very fortunate when he spoke recently with Joe (the plumber) and showed America what we have been coming to learn about him for months.

Also, please be advised that the investigation that I have undertaken will take many democrats to places they would rather not go; be prepared.

Obama’s American Socialism: Decades In The Making

Part I

A plethora of articles have been written about the death of the Democratic Party, or as some bloggers and Clinton Supporters state; the coup or hostile takeover by the liberal left wing of the democratic party.  They cannot believe that their party has now become the party of violence, sexism, misogyny, racism, thuggery, deceits corruption, caucus fraud, and voter registration fraud.  What is missing from the equation is that this is not the liberal left wing; far from it, this is a group of people with socialist/marxist beliefs, with a pinch of fascism thrown in, being led by the marketed messiah under the guise of “progressivism”, with a belief system that states the ends justify the means.

Centrist dems and all other Americans must stop looking at the current Democratic Party through the perception they have of what the Democratic Party once meant.  That party is dead and was buried on May 31st, 2008.  Once this perception is shattered, these dems, undecided voters, former Clinton dems and possibly even some Obama dems may flip their votes, and more importantly, their loyalty away from the party that has become the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.  What is being uncovered may also explain why 90% of the African American population is voting for this candidate, and though some of it has to do with his race, more maybe because of his socialist philosophy.

Since so much of what our perception is can be taken from what we think certain terms mean, I am listing the definitions of political party concepts as a way to put everyone on the same page, and to facilitate the understanding of where this “alien” democratic party is actually heading with Obama in the front and his numerous radical socialist/marxist associates in the background.  These quotes come from Encyclopedia2/The Free Dictionary.

Democratic Party:

When political alignments first emerged in George Washington’s administration, opposing factions were led by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.  In the basic disagreement over the nature and functions of government and of society, the Jeffersonians advocated a society based on the small farmer; they opposed strong centralized government and were suspicious of urban commercial interests. Their ideals—opposed to those of the Federalist Party — came to be known as Jeffersonian democracy, based in large part on faith in the virtue and ability of the common man and the limitation of the powers of the federal government. This group of Anti-Federalists, who called themselves Republicans or Democratic Republicans (the name was not fixed as Democratic until 1828), supported many of the ideals of the French Revolution and opposed close relations with Great Britain.

Progressive Party:

U.S. independent political party. The first Progressive Party, known as the Bull Moose Party, was organized in 1911. The second was assembled in 1924; it nominated as its presidential candidate Robert La Follette, who received 17% of the national vote on a platform calling for a “housecleaning” of executive departments, public control of natural resources, public ownership of the railways, and tax reduction. The party dissolved upon La Follette’s death in 1925. The third Progressive Party, founded in 1947 by Henry Wallace, differed from the previous groups in its focus on foreign affairs; it favoured a conciliatory policy toward the Soviet Union. Though Wallace received more than one million votes in the 1948 election, the party was never again influential.

Progressivism:

The term “progressive” is today often used in place of “liberal“. Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, “Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept… that accepts the world as dynamic.” Progressives see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.

American progressives tend to support interventionist economics: they advocate income redistribution, and they oppose the growing influence of corporations. Conversely, European and Australian progressives tend to be more pro-business, and will often have policies that are soft on taxation of large corporations. Progressives are in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system. Yet progressives tend to be more concerned with environmentalism than mainstream liberals, and are often more skeptical of the government, positioning themselves as whistleblowers and advocates of governmental reform. Finally, liberals are more likely to support the Democratic Party in America and the Labour party in Europe and Australia, while progressives tend to feel disillusioned with any two-party system, and vote more often for third-party candidates.

Socialism:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Socialism (in the strict or radical sense) aims to establish a fundamentally different society from the one that currently exists in most countries. While there are different schools of socialism, which often tend to have differing views of the ideal socialist society, some general examples of socialist concepts are: The desire to abolish capitalism, to place the means of productionexploits the working class, and they desire for workers to play a vital role in moving society from capitalism to socialism (either by rising up in a revolution or general strike, or by voting en masse for socialist political parties). under the collective ownership of the people, and to achieve a very high degree of economic and political equality. Socialists argue that capitalism

In contrast, by definition progressivism aims to achieve gradual social change, and most progressives are outright opposed to any form of radical revolution. When the progressive movement split on economic principles, some progressives moved towards the socialist camp, advocating a planned economy. Other progressives moved towards the regulated mixed economy camp, with both public and private ownership of companies. Between these two extremes is social democracy (not a term in popular U.S. usage), a branch of socialism that became increasingly moderate and moved towards the political center. Regulated-capitalism progressives and socialist progressives still tend to support similar progressive social policies, outside of economic principles.

Communism:

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

2. Communism

• a. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
• b. The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.

National Socialism, Naziism, Nazism:

national socialism, Naziism, Nazism - a form of socialism featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader

German history the doctrines and practices of the Nazis, involving the supremacy of Hitler, anti-Semitism, state control of the economy, and national expansion

The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.

Capitalism:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

An economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

******

After reading those definitions, would you not agree that it is more than apparent the Democratic Party is now the Progressive Socialist Party.  Income redistribution, universal health care, nationalization of the economy through our banks, centralized government, and a drive to destroy the free market capitalist system upon which our nation was built.

Remember these Obama quotes:

1. “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
2. “It’s no secret that most Americans think the country is on the wrong track,” Obama told the group. “But the reason isn’t just failed policies.  It’s a system in Washington that has failed the American people.  A system that has not kept the most fundamental trust of American democracy; that our government is of the people, and that it must govern for all the people - not just the interests of the wealthy and well-connected.”
3. “We don’t need the people, we just need their checks.”

Barack Obama is their hand picked, groomed and marketed candidate.  This is why Hillary Clinton was destroyed by the “Democratic Party” in the primaries.  She is either too weak, too strong, too smart, or is too independent for this “new” party to achieve her election, and then control her.  On the other hand, Barack has been spoon fed these beliefs for years, and is a willing participant in the downfall of America as we know it, besides now being so far in political debt to these radical associations, even if he were to change his philosophical mindset, he will never be able to climb out of the personal hell most of us would consider that position to be.

All one has to do is put the pieces together starting with William Ayers, Obama’s most publicized associate with radical beliefs and actions, and leading to Bernadine Dohrn, Michelle Obama, Marilyn Katz, Frank Marshall Davis, Alice Palmer, George Soros, Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Carl Davidson, Robert Blackwell, Tony Rezko, Dorothy Tillman, Robert Malley, Cornel West, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Nancy Pelosi, MoveOn.org, Center for American Progress, Open Society Institute, Arab American Action Network, The Democracy Alliance, The New Party, the Democratic Socialist Party, The Working Families Party, Socialist Scholars Conference, Campaign for America’s Future, The Progressive Caucus, Public Allies, ACORN, Citizens Services, Inc., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ken Rolling, The Woods Fund, The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, The Joyce Foundation, Gamaliel Foundation, Students For A Democratic Society, Saul Alinsky, Richard Andrew Cloward, Frances Fox Piven, Zbigniew Brzenzinski, Penny Pritzker, The Superior Bank, The Broadway Bank, Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, Reverend Wright, Rather Pfleuger, Raila Odinga of Kenya, Rashid Khalidi, Nadhmi Auchi and only halting at Fusion Elections because more has not yet come to light.  (And most Americans thought there were only a couple-three crazies in the background, right?)  I am sure I will be adding to this list.

If you head is spinning or about to explode, just take a few breaths and notes if need be, it will become clear enough that this campaign to remake the Democratic Party into the Progressive Socialist Party has been in the making for well over 20 years, and according to many, Saul Alinksy and his students; radical socialist and Columbia University professors, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven who came up with the Cloward-Piven strategy best described by the American Thinker is probably the Godfather of this movement.

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors — Weather Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has yet connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply immersed in it.

But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of unmitigated legislative disasters, the latest of which is now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994 Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress - with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

snip

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one. (Courtesy Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:    Excerpted from very lengthy but excellent researched article at:

Logistics Monster

A Puma’s View Of The World….It’s All In The Details   http://logisticsmonster.com/radicals/

               EMPLOYMENT AND SURVIVAL IN URBAN AMERICA
         a discussion of policy, problems, and possibilities

                                 with

                        WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON,
 Director, Center for the Study of Urban Inequality at the University
                              of Chicago

                           MICHAEL DAWSON,
        Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago

                            BARACK OBAMA,
          Candidate, State Senate, 13th Legislative District

                          TONI PRECKWINKLE,
                          4th Ward Alderman

                           JOSEPH SCHWARTZ,
          Professor of Political Science, Temple University

                        SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 25TH
                                7:00pm
                    Ida Noyes Hall, Cloyster Club
                     1313 E. 59th Street, Chicago

Sponsored by:
*University of Chicago Democrats
*Chicago Democratic Socialists of America
*University of Chicago Democratic Socialists of America

For more information call:

From the mid 1996 to 2005, Barack Obama attended about half a dozen meetings of the Chicago Democratic Socialist of America [ http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Achicagodsa.org+obama+Town+Meeting&btnG=Search ], the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International [ http://www.dsausa.org/about/index.html ], and draws upon Marxism, religious and ethical socialism to bring about fundamental restructuring of our socio-economic order [ http://www.chicagodsa.org/democraticsocialism.html ]. In the 1990’s, Barack Obama was a member of the Chicago New Party [ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932 ], another socialist party [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(USA) ].

During meetings of the DSA, Barack Obama has promoted the Marxist concept of a social wage, income redistribution, and the allocation of wages and jobs using labor law reform, public works and contracts [ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html ].

Barack Obama was the chief sponsor [ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng96.html#anchor495069 ] of an Illinois bill to set up state-wide universal healthcare [ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng94.html#anchor349979 ].

In its latest newsletter, the DSA supported Obama’s candidacy, claiming that if Obama explained what his real plans are he would not be elected [ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng120.html ].

Excerpt from: Presto Pundit, Greg Ransom at: http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html

[Welcome Althouse, RealClearPolitics, LGF, Politico, TNR, NY Times, Campaign Spot, Michelle Malkin, Gateway Pundit, Hot Air, Sweetness & Light, Ace of Spades, DailyKos, and Marginal Revolution readers.]

[Politico & TNR readers -- GO HERE FIRST.]

The "Rosebud" of Barack Obama's Memoir -- Part 1 of GREG'S GUIDE TO BARACK OBAMA'S DREAMS FROM MY FATHER.


There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father:  A Story of Race and Inheritance.  What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college?  Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school?  Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college?  Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?

And there is more mystery in the book.  Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?"  Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others?  Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer?  It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir.

If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father.  Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220)   And what was that image?  It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278)  What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself."  And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)

So we know that his father's ideals were a driving force in his life, but the one thing that Obama does not give us are the contents of those ideals.  The closest he comes is when he tells us that his father lost his position in the government when he came into conflict with Jomo Kenyatte, the President of Kenya sometime in the mid 1960s; when he tells us that his father was imprisoned for his political views by the government just prior to the end of colonial rule; and when he tells us that the attributes of W. E. B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela were the ones he associated with his father and also the ones that he sought to instill in himself.  (p. 220)  This last group is a hodge podge, perhaps concealing as much as it reveals, in that it contains a socialist black nationalist, a Muslim black nationalist, a civil rights leader, and (at the time indicated in the memoir) an imprisoned armed revolutionary.

A bit of research at the library reveals the answers about Barack Obama's father and his father's convictions which Obama withholds from his readers.  A first hint comes from authors E. S. Atieno Odhiambo and David William Cohen in their book The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio U. Press, 2004).  On page 182 of their book they describe how Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga, in a paper Barack Obama's father wrote for the East Africa Journal.  As Odhiambo and Cohen write, "The debates [over economic policy] pitted .. Mboya against .. Oginga Odinga and radical economists Dharam Ghai and Barrack Obama, who critiqued the document for being neither African nor socialist enough."

I have a copy of Barack Obama's paper here in my hand, obtained from the stacks at UCLA (see the picture above).  The paper is as describe by Odhiambo and Cohen, a cutting attack from the left on Tom Mboya's historically important policy paper "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya."  The author is given as "Barak H. Obama" and his paper is titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism", published July, 1965 in the East African Journal, pp. 26-33.  [UPDATE:  I sent Politico a copy, and they've posted a PDF file of the paper here.]

Obama,Sr. stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:

1.   Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)

2.  Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)

3.  Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)

4.  Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism.  Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)

5.  Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28)  "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. "  (pp. 29-30)

6.  Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists.  (p. 33)

7.  Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers.  (p. 33)

8.  Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a "non-aligned" status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China.  (p. 26)

So what does all this tell us about Barack Obama, the father, and how does it help us fill in the gaps and decipher Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father?  We know from Obama's memoir that his father is an "uncompromising" man whose ideals and principles gets him in trouble with the "big man" who ran Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta, leading to a dramatic scene in which Kenyatta personally confronts Obama the father and in one fell swoop destroys not only his government career but ultimately his life.  Working with Obama's book alone it is hard to know what is going on.  We get only an inkling when Obama quotes his "Granny" (one of Obama the elder's wives) as saying the following, "I would tell him he was too stubborn in his dealings with the government.  He would talk to me of his principle .. "  (p. 424)

Now if we fill in the missing information we have now learned about Barack Obama the elder -- that he held uncompromising socialist and anti-Western views in line with Kenyatta's principle political rival Oginga Odinga -- we can understand why he had conflicts of "principle" with Kenyatta and government.  And the timeline begins to make sense.  TIME magazine reports the open conflict between the anti-communist, pro-Western Kenyatta and the communist-allied, anti-Western Odinga in a story from June, 1965, a story in which Odinga declares "communism is like food to me."  By 1966 Odinga was out of the government.  In Obama's Dream From My Father these political events and their consequences for Barack Obama the elder are described in the voice of his sister Auma:

"The Old Man [Obama], he left the American company to work in the government, for the Ministry of Tourism.  He may have had political ambitions, and at first he was doing well in the government.  But by 1966 or 1967, the divisions in Kenya had become more serious.  President Kenyatta was from the largest tribe, the Kikuyus .. The vice-president, Odinga, was a Luo [as was Obama], and he said the government was becoming corrupt.  That, instead of serving those who had fought for independence, Kenyan politicians had take the place of white colonials, buying businesses and land that should be redistributed to the people.  Odinga tried to start his own party, but was placed under house arrest as a Communist.  Another popular Luo minister, Tom M'boya, was killed by a Kikuyu gunman.  Luos began to protest in the streets, and the government police cracked down ..

Most of the Old Man's friends just kept quiet and learned to live with the situation.  But the Old Man began to speak up.  He would tell people that tribalism was going to ruin the country and that unqualified men were taking the best jobs.  His friends tried to warn him about saying such things in public, but he didn't care.  He always thought he know what was best, you see.  When he was passed up for a promotion, he complained loudly.  'How can you be my senior,' he would say to one of the ministers, 'and yet I am teaching you how to do your job properly?'  Word got back to Kenyatta that the Old Man was a troublemaker, and he was called in to see the president .. Kenyatta said to the Old Man that, because he could not keep his mouth shut, he would not work again until he had no shoes on his feet.

I don't know how much of these details are true.  But I know that with the president as an enemy things became very bad for the Old Man.  He was banished from the government -- blacklisted.  None of the ministries would give him work.  When he went to foreign companies to look for a post, the companies were warned not to hire him .. Finally, he had to accept a small job with the Water Department."

There are a couple of false notes in this account.  To begin with, Barack Obama the father didn't "begin" to speak up. Obama was challenging the policies of Kenyatta's government from the left in the most prestigious forum possible, the East Africa Journal, at exactly the same moment when Vice President Odinga was challenging the Kenyatta government from the left.  What is more, Obama did so in openly arrogant and condescending fashion, almost as if saying to Kenyatta and his government, 'How can you [be in charge of the economy], when I am teaching you how to do your job properly?"  The last lines of Obama's EAJ paper capture the tone of the whole,

"Despite my remarks, it is laudable that the government came out with the paper.  But this is not to deny that fact that it could have been a better paper if the government were to look into priorities and see them clearly within their context so that their implementation could have had a basis on which to rely.  Maybe it is better to have something perfunctorily done than none at all!"

Excerpt continued from "Presto Pundit at: http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html   By Greg Ransom on April 7, 2008 |at: http://gregransom.com/prestopundit/2008/04/gregs-guide-to-barack-obamas-d.html 

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. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful.  "After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century .... In 1996, it helped Chicago's Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district .... The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued."

Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.

October  08, 2008

Democratic Socialists of America Founded the "New Party" Whos Newsletter Claims Obama Was Member

The "New Party" claimed Barack Obama was a card carrying member in a 1996 newsletter found on internet archive.

Via Politically Drunk on Power: In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". 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...

..."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. "

See Also:

 [TRANSLATED] Exposes Barack Obama's militant mentors, supporters & friends

Exposes Barack Obama's militant mentors, friends and supporters while in college. Mr.Barack Obama, spending 20 years in ... Exposes Barack Obama's militant mentors, friends and supporters while in college. Mr. Barack Obama, spending 20 years in Jeremiah Wrights church, listening to anti-white hatred day after day does not qualify you to be president of the United States. Barack Obama, someone who believes in murdering helpless unborn babies by abortion should not be president. Barack Obama who believes in desecrating Holy Matrimony by allowing sodomites to blaspheme God by getting married should not be president. SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life. http://www.armyofgod.com (more)

Revolutionary Roster: 1968 Radicals for Obama

Daniel Flynn, over at City Journal, offers a "who's who" of '60s-era radicals who are backing Barack Obama's presidential campaign, starting with Maoist Communist Mike Klonsky:

Michael Klonsky is hardly the only ’68 radical supporting Obama this year. In 1968, when Mark Rudd organized the student strike that shut down Columbia University, the SDS chapter that he chaired ridiculed Kennedy and McCarthy as “McKennedy,” claimed that “neither peace candidate offers an alternative to the war policies of Lyndon Johnson,” and suggested “sabotage” as an alternative to voting. Rudd succeeded Klonsky as national SDS leader, presiding over the organization’s metamorphosis into Weatherman and performing “a liaison function” for the plot to bomb a Fort Dix soldiers’ dance that instead killed three Weathermen, including two of Rudd’s Columbia SDS colleagues. Today, Rudd renounces bombs, embraces ballots—and supports Obama. “Probably the biggest difference between Columbia SDS people in 1968 and in 2008 is forty years,” Rudd explained in an e-mail. “Most of us have lived with compromise our whole lives. As kids we were raving idealists who thought that ‘The elections don’t mean sh--t’ was a slogan that meant something to somebody. It didn’t.”

Then there’s Carl Davidson, who was one of SDS’s three elected national officers in 1968, when the organization first urged young people to refrain from voting. His disillusionment with traditional politics became so pronounced that, in the post-sixties hangover that followed, Davidson joined Klonsky in rejecting traditional politics for fringe Marxist movements. More recently, he helped organize the 2002 rally in which Obama first spoke out against the Iraq War and now serves as the webmaster of Progressives for Obama. “The last thing we need is a simple repeat of 1968, which saw Nixon and the new Right as an outcome, as well as the defeat of [Humphrey],” Davidson contends. “One thing I’ve learned. Social change is not made by elections, but it certainly proceeds through them, not by ignoring them or chasing the illusion of end runs around them.”

Former SDS president Tom Hayden is also in the Obama camp. Hayden organized the made-for-TV protest outside the 1968 Chicago convention. But the catharsis of throwing debris at the Chicago police, the purer-than-thou sanctimony that tolerated no distinction between Lyndon Johnson and Eugene McCarthy, and the exhilaration of “voting in the streets” instead of in election booths combined to ensure liberal defeats. Hayden’s orchestrated anarchy proved more damaging to Humphrey’s presidential aspirations than any dirty trick Nixon’s henchmen could have dreamed up. Klonsky remembers Hayden plotting to spread nails on a highway; another SDS leader recalls Hayden encouraging activists to firebomb police cars. If the Democrats couldn’t run a convention, many Americans wondered, how could they run the country? “Did the radicalism of Chicago elect Richard Nixon?” Hayden asked, clearly pained, in his 1988 memoir. “Having struggled with that question for twenty years, I find there is no ‘neat’ answer.”

Now Hayden is one of the organizers of Progressives for Obama. “The difference is that back then the Democratic Party was directly carrying out the Vietnam War, which meant there was no anti-war critic to vote for after Kennedy was assassinated and McCarthy defeated by the establishment,” he offered in an e-mail last month. “Today the Republican Party is directly carrying out the war, which obviously will make a lot of people favor changing the presidency despite the uncertainty of what the Democratic candidate will do when in office.”

Progressives for Obama resembles a Who’s Who of SDS luminaries. In addition to Hayden, Rudd, and Davidson, the group includes Bob Pardun, SDS’s education secretary during the 1966–67 school year; Paul Buhle, a radical professor who has recently attempted to revive SDS; Mickey and Dick Flacks, red-diaper babies who helped craft 1962’s Port Huron Statement, a seminal New Left document; and SDS’s third president, Todd Gitlin. Age and experience have mellowed some of the SDSers in Obama’s camp. Gitlin, for instance, has evolved into a respected Ivy League professor and milquetoast liberal. But others still glory in a past that can only damage Obama’s future. The aging New Left still practices a therapeutic politics that places a higher value on feelings of personal liberation than on restrained pursuit of political aims.