Barack Obama's campaign of the lie
By Selwyn Duke
Absent the ability to read minds and hearts, I can't really tell you if Barack Obama is uniquely dishonest. What is for certain, though, is that his campaign is uniquely deceitful. These two things are not synonymous. Politicians are famous for suppressing facts and manufacturing fantasies to hide their faults, and, while Obama certainly practices this sleight-of-hand, I can't say he is more inured to it that your average prevaricating pol. But what is doubtless is that he has more faults to hide.
It's ironic that Obama has used the "lipstick on a pig" line, because Avon's whole inventory couldn't, sans media spin, cover up his true colors. And color is a factor this election. It's not that the senator is black, however, or that, as he said last debate alluding to McCain's criticism, he is "green behind the ears." It's that he is red behind the ears.
Barack Obama may be the most radically-left major-party presidential nominee in our nation's history. A recent analysis of voting records – not words but actions – showed that the senator owned the most left-wing record in the Senate in 2007, placing him ahead of even that body's one avowed socialist, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. Now, if Sanders proclaims himself a socialist, and Obama is to the left of Sanders, what do you call Obama?
Of course, some question the methodology of the study, and, true enough, a different one might yield slightly different rankings. But if Obama is within a sickle-length of socialist Sanders, does it really matter if he is a couple of spots above or below? This is an instance where we definitely should remember second place.
Yet accusations of socialism are, well, just so hard to believe. But a damning revelation just came to light that should leave no doubt about Obama's sympathies. The blog "Politically Drunk On Power" (PDOP) just discovered documents showing that the senator was a member of the "New Party," which is, the blog explains,
". . . 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."
Now, listen to this. The New Party tried its best to obscure Obama's ties to the organization – I'm guessing with the complicity of the senator's campaign – and had scrubbed the relevant documents from its website; however, PDOP was able to find them at a non-profit Internet Archive Organization. Quoting from the October 1996 New Party update, the blog reveals:
PDOP then cites the November 1996 issue of Progressive Populist magazine, which reported on the results of the general election, writing:
"New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago [emphasis mine]."
Providing further evidence, PDOP provides an excerpt from the DSA's July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter, which in part reads:
Citing yet another source, the 1996 Election Update from the Columbus Free Post, PDOP writes:
"The first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested."
Now there is an obvious question. If Obama was a member of the New Party, why was he running as a Democrat in Illinois? The answer is that these socialists were Machiavellian and understood that they could not as yet win power under their own banner. This tactic was outlined in the New Party's 1997 Happy Birthday Update. Here are parts of the PDOP excerpt:
Does Obama's history as a "community organizer" still sound innocuous or even positive? The above provides the strongest indication that he was a socialist community organizer ("agitator" is a better word).
Here is more from the update:
"Chapters run candidates only where they have a real chance of winning, combine campaign work with organizing and education, and refuse to spoil elections by stealing votes from the better of two major party candidates [emphasis mine]."
Given this fact, is it any surprise that ex-weathermen terrorist and Obama ally Bill Ayers obtained a $50 million government grant for "education" and then gave it the senator, who, in turn, funneled it to ACORN, a group involved in "organizing" (that is, organizing voter fraud)?
The update continues:
No, but it now seems they very well may soon have one of their number in the White House.
Next, PDOP provides evidence from an article written by New Party member Jim McGrath in 1997:
". . . Chapters generally require endorsed candidates to sign a contract, with requirements that they be NP members, identify as such, support the NP principles and program, and work to build NP chapters . . . ."
In other words, it's highly probable that Obama signed a contract with this socialist party and was a member.
More from the article:
Note that all throughout these quotations, we see continual admissions that socialists are, in fact, running as Democrat candidates, using the major party as a political Trojan Horse. These socialists have also won offices in many parts of the nation. Thus, two ominous questions present themselves: Should Obama win the presidency, how many in the Democrat-controlled house will be fellow New Party travelers? And, with both the legislative and executive branches in their hands and the election past, will the lipstick come off? Will they feel free to legislate a radical socialist agenda?
Lastly there is the Chicago DSA Press Release New Ground 69, which tells us (in the Endorsements Section) of how ". . . Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity . . . ."
What does "YDS" stand for?
Youth Democratic Socialists.
I understand that some of you are enraptured by Barack Obama. He is a charismatic leader at the center of a cult of personality, and you may not want to think ill of him. But we all want to be responsible voters, and this requires placing country before oratory, before image, before personality, before party, and considering evidence presented. And in Obama's case it is overwhelming; it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a socialist.
Thus, responsible citizens must demand two things before giving the senator their vote. First, he must come clean about his socialist past and exhibit some contrition. Second, he must convince us that he has renounced these socialist beliefs and will not push the DSA agenda from the Oval Office.
We also must be mindful of the old saying, "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior." As for the Chicago surprise's past, he cultivated his political career in a very bad neighborhood. A bad ideological one. And if he wants to now occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the onus is on him to truly prove he has left it behind.