Barack Obama: The Radical New Party Socialist, With Evidence (Updated)

Note: See update below for even more information….

Original story:

Some interesting information has surfaced today which cements what many of us already suspected about Barack Obama. For starters, Obama hasn’t always been a loyal member of the Democratic Party, and new information out now shows quite the contrary.

In 1996, during his Illinois state senate run, Barack Obama was a member of a radical socialist organization called the Chicago New Party, a group of hardcore left-wing socialists bent on infiltrating the Democratic Party with their ultra-socialist candidates.

One of their newest, most promising candidates in 1996 was none other than the now well-known Barack Obama, currently running for President of the United States of America.

These claims aren’t baseless or even a stretch, rather there are many direct links between Obama and these radical factions which I will explore below. First though, a little background on the Chicago New Party and the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America.

The WikiPedia, for what it’s worth, explains the New Party in this manner:

Left-wing critics of the New Party, such as supporters of the Green Party, argued that the New Party was merely a pressure group on the fringes of the Democratic Party, rather than a genuinely new political party. New Party leaders argued that classic third-party strategies were doomed to failure, but that the Democratic Party was too entrenched and undemocratic to be a useful institution for “small-d democrats” either, even if they could succeed in taking it over, and so a new kind of organization was needed.

While the New Party itself was not a legitimate party, what is scarier is that New Party proponents and supporters wanted to infiltrate the Democratic Party to move it towards socialism since they believed it was too entrenched in corporate interests.

What we’re seeing today with Barack Obama running for President as a Democrat is the culmination of the New Party’s ultimate plan, to install radical left-wing socialists into prominent offices under the guise of the Democratic Party. Barack Obama is the textbook plan the Chicago New Party radicals have been waiting for.

Take this directly from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America website which congratulates Barack Obama on his primary victory while running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996:

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.

Check the link above for verification, the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America party spoke very highly of their new golden boy. They even quote Obama as asking for other New Party members (NPers as stated in the blurb) to join his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. Sounds familiar, ACORN anyone? Barack Obama ran for the Illinois state senate, registered as a Democrat of course, but he was running as a closet socialist New Party member with the intent on moving the Democratic Party to the left from within, not running as a third-party candidate. This is irrefutable.

More evidence –

The New Zeal blog did all Americans a service by digging up the Chicago New Party’s old newsletters from 1996. Here is where the plot thickens even more. Here is the front page of their 1996 newsletter scanned:

Here is a close-up on this front page:

Here’s the ultra-close-up of that front page, discussing members of the Chicago New Party, such as Barack Obama, and their victories in their respective primaries:

Let me re-quote it just for impact:

New Party members won three other primaries this spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County judiciary).

The New Party was championing Barack Obama as their new golden boy running for the Illinois State Senate, they even gloated about him in their newsletter as a New Party member winning a primary.

Further evidence, if you had any remaining doubt, here is a scan of the New Party’s 1996 newsletter from page 2 scanned:

See that gentleman on the right? That’s Barack Obama on the right side posing with his other New Party friends and relishing their victories on their road to turn the Democratic Party toward radical socialism.

The Chicago Democratic Socialists of America make no bones about their intentions, they openly discuss their desire to install socialist politicians within the Democratic Party with the hopes of turning America away from capitalism.

Here’s a direct quote from the front page of the DSA:

Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States and around the world by training and mobilizing socialist activists to participate in a vibrant and diverse socialist organization at both the local and the national level. DSA both educates the public about democratic socialist values and policies and builds progressive coalitions to win victories that move the U.S. and the world toward social democracy.

Barack Obama’s old political friends in Chicago, the same people who endorsed him and launched his career, yearn to instill socialist ideals in politics and bring the Democratic Party to the left, where they believe it belongs.

The other group closely associated with the Chicago New Party was ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Of course, as we know, Barack Obama worked for ACORN, volunteering his time to train ACORN staffers on how to register voters. ACORN is now under investigation in 13 states for voter fraud after Barack Obama’s campaign paid them $800,000 to register voters during the primary season.

Need more proof of Barack Obama’s hidden socialist intentions? Listen to the audio in this video, recorded in 1995, in which Obama trashes the United States as a racist nation where whites constantly subjugate blacks:

Note how the video cuts back and forth from 1995 to present day statements so you can see his socialist views on wealth redistribution have not changed during the past 12 years. In 1995, Obama said reparations should take the form of taxing wealthy “white” professionals and redistribute it to “inner city” schools. Earlier this year at a debate during the Democratic Primary, Obama made the same argument that he believes reparations should take the form of investing in education.

OBAMA: And I really want to emphasize the word responsibility. I think that, uh, whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner city children, uh, to — for them to go to school.

Because I think of the problems that African-Americans face in this country, we tend to have a sanitized view in the African-American community about what is going on in Africa. And the truth of the matter is is that many of the problems that Africa faces, whether it’s poverty, uh, or political suppression, uh, or ethnic conflict, uh, is just as prominent there and can’t all be blamed on, uh, the effects of colonialism. What it can be blamed on is some of the common factors that affect Bosnia or, uh, Los Angeles or, uh, all kinds of places on this earth, and that is the tendency for one group to try to suppress another group in the interests of power or greed or, uh, resources or what have you.

The media, for all their time and money, have done every single American a disservice during this election season. We have here Barack Obama, a radical socialist who, in his own words, discusses his belief that increasing taxes on the wealthy is the way he will force America to pay reparations to African-Americans.

Furthermore, Barack Obama went out of his way to be a member of the Chicago New Party, a group of like-minded socialists who could launch his political career.

A short list summarizing Barack Obama’s affiliations and membership in the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) party:

  1. Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.
  2. Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP.”
  3. Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.
  4. Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and -backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.
  5. Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on voter education and voter registeration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

The bottom line here is something that many Barack Obama supporters will not want to read or even believe could be possible. Barack Obama is a closet radical socialist who ran, in 1996, as Democratic with a membership in the Chicago New Party.

The goal: For the radical socialist Chicago New Party to install socialist politicians into prominent positions under the mask of the Democratic Party.

The man: Barack Obama was an active member in the Chicago New Party, as evidenced above by the party newsletters calling him a member and congratulating on his win.

The conclusion: The radical socialist Chicago New Party is now getting it’s wishes since Barack Obama is masquerading under the Democratic Party while running for President.

I just did, in about 30 minutes, what the entire mainstream media complex hasn’t done for two years.

My fellow Americans, there is still time to save American’s capitalist freedom for future generations by voting against Barack Obama on November 4th. Do you want to wake up on November 5th and find out you just voted for a radical socialist who’s been masquerading as a common Democrat?

If you vote for Barack Obama, you will be responsible for fulfilling the plans of the Chicago New Party by sending a radical, anti-capitalist, pro-socialist politician to the White House. I implore you to vote for McCain this year and save your vote for 2012 to vote for a real Democrat, not Barack Obama the Chicago New Party socialist.

Just remember, Barack Obama is one man, however, he will have to appoint over 1,100 people to various government positions the day he walks into the White House, who do you think he’ll be appointing? My guess is a group of anti-American socialists so radical you won’t even be able to recognize the government in a couple years. How do I know this? Just look at all the radical socialists he owes favors to for starting his political career in Chicago.

Barack Obama is a proponent of socialist policies such as the redistribution of wealth. That is, taking money from people who are successful and giving it to people who don’t pay taxes. If you are even remotely successful in life, Barack Obama wants to pick your pocket and redistribute to someone who makes less money, that is the ultimate Chicago New Party goal. What’s more, as seen in the above video, Barack Obama wants to implement these socialist policies with a racial tinge of reparations.

I for one will not be a part of the dismantling of America’s free market capitalism, I hope you won’t be either.

Story Update:

Due to the popularity and importance of this article, I have continued digging and found even more alarming information concerning Barack Obama’s direct connection to, and endorsement of, the radical socialist ideas professed by the Chicago New Party and the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America.

Here is video of Barack Obama standing with, and endorsing rabid Chicago New Party member Danny K. Davis. Obama makes it a point to say that he’s supporting Davis because, quote, “he shares our values”. This appearance by Barack Obama was during his run for the United States Senate in 2004:

Obama’s version of giving everyone a “piece” of the American dream is to take someone’s existing “piece” and redistribute to someone else who he believes more fairly deserves it.

The page on the Chicago New Party website which discusses Davis has been removed, however, luckily the cached copy is available in the Internet Archive, seen here:

On March 19, Danny Davis won the Democratic Primary for Congress in Chicago’s 7th Congressional District (West Side), and won the general election in November, 1996. Why is this particularly interesting to the New Party? Because Davis became the first New Party member elected to the U.S. Congress.

“I’m proud to be the first New Party member in the House of Representatives. Now we need to build a nationwide progressive-populist political organization which can aggressively fight back against those who are driving American politics in an anti-democratic direction.”

So just what are these “shared values” which are common between Danny Davis, Barack Obama, and other Chicago New Party members? I’ll let the New Party website explain them.

The most alarming, blatantly socialist aspect of the Chicago New Party’s platform is their “Starting Gate” welfare reform program. Welfare reform? We’ve heard that before, but this is “reform” like you’ve never even imagined. Here is the description from the New Party website which is now archived:

American commitments to equal opportunity should be upheld with the resources to make them real. We favor universal access to quality health care, education, and housing for all children – a program of “starting gate” equality that will tend to equalize chances before people enter the labor force. For adults, we believe most social benefits should be universal – like Social Security is now – but taxed progressively based on private income. The result would be fairer and more fiscally stable.

So what does Barack Obama and his Chicago New Party socialist friends mean? It’s very clear, they want to redistribute wealth from successful Americans in order to provide “free,” universal everything programs to many Americans who don’t even pay taxes.

This line here should make your skin crawl: “but taxed progressively based on private income”

As such, the Chicago New Party believes in extreme progressive taxation, taxing successful Americans the most in order to pay for universal health insurance, universal housing, and expanding universal retirement similar to the way Social Security, the failing system, now functions.

Barack Obama’s version of welfare reform is not trying to minimize welfare, it’s expanding it to include every possible service the government can provide, paid for by successful Americans by increasing their taxes through an extreme progressive tax.

If this doesn’t give you concern, perhaps this next bit of information will.

As of now in 2008, the Chicago New Party is largely inactive. Of course, these people didn’t all go away, they simply formed a new party under a new name which didn’t have the stigma attached to it that the Chicago New Party once had.

If you visit the current Chicago New Party website, there isn’t much to find except a link to the Working Families Party website. What is the “Working Families Party” you ask?

The Wikipedia, again for what it’s worth, describes the Working Families Party in this regard:

New York’s Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups. The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism. The party’s main issue concerns are jobs, health care, education and energy/environment, and it has won notable policy gains at the city, county and state level by piggybacking on Democratic or Republican candidates.

The Working Families Party was organized by groups such as ACORN and former members of the now inactive New Party, two groups with which Barack Obama has had much involvement in the past. What’s more, the blurb discusses similar tactics used by the Chicago New Party of attaching themselves to the Democratic or Republican ticket in order to actually win elections as closet radical socialists.

Sound familiar? It should since the Chicago New Party’s goal was also to piggyback it’s way into prominent political offices by running as Democrats. This is the same way Barack Obama operated in Illinois while running for a state senate seat as a secret member of the Chicago New Party, running as a Democrat.

It comes, as no surprise then, that the Working Families Party has endorsed Barack Obama:

Barack Obama’s campaign has inspired millions of Americans to fight for the issues the WFP has long championed, whether it’s an economy that works for everyone, healthcare for all, protecting social security, or the right to join a union.

This November, Obama will appear on the Working Families Party ballot line – “Row E” – across New York. Votes for Obama on the WFP line count just the same, but they also let you vote your values and send a powerful message: New Yorkers demand real progressive change.

Reading that correctly? The Working Families Party has endorsed Barack Obama because they know he can, quote, bring “real progressive change”. The Working Familiies Party, made up of ACORN and the New Party, is endorsing Barack Obama because they know he is a radical socialist who used to work for ACORN and went out of his way to become a member of radical Chicago New Party when was running to be a state senator in Illinois.

So with all that, which is a lot to digest, where does it leave us?

The answer: Right back to where Barack Obama started, as a wealth redistribution proponent in the Chicago New Party:

As you can tell by now, when Barack Obama says “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” he truly means it in his own socialist mindset. His true feelings have emerged several times over the course of the campaign though no encounter has been as damning as his encounter with “Joe the Plumber,” to whom he shared his Chicago New Party socialist mindset.

Once again, I implore you as a fellow American who cares deeply for my country. Do not vote for Barack Obama, the radical socialist who has piggybacked his way onto the Democratic ticket.

If you vote for Barack Obama, you’re not voting for Barack Obama the “Democrat,” you’re voting for Barack Obama of the Chicago New Party, part of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America, endorsed by the currently active and ultra-socialist Working Families Party.

If there is ever a time to put partisanship aside and do what is best for the country, now is that time. Vote against Barack Obama’s radical socialist agenda, which we have just documented and chronicled.

Finally, share this article with friends, family, and anyone thinking of voting for Barack Obama.


Conservative Gal is a regular commentary writer for YouDecide2008.com

  • BenS

    Wow. What a great video! I feel better than ever about casting a vote for Barack Obama. I am an educated, white American. My family arrived in New England (both of sides of my family) in the 1630s. The information provided in this article and video demonstrate to me that Obama’s ethics and intentions are exactly what we need for this nation, at this time. We will be better off for it. My three children, all 100% white, and God willing, my grandchildren, will look back at this election and praise the Lord we elected Barack Obama’s, whose minor but significant leftward leanings put the country back on track. Amen.

  • BenS,

    Thanks for your willing and eager participation in the death of American capitalism.

    You’re “white American” grandchildren, as you call them, won’t be thanking you when they find out you helped the radical socialists take over the government by voting for Barack Obama.

    You have freedom and capitlism, you seem so eager to steal it from your grandchildren. Then again, people like you see no issue with the government being their bread and butter. Thankfully the rest of America doesn’t feel the same way you do.

    I realize you’re just trying to bait me since no sane, reasonable person would write the things you did and actually pretend to mean them.

    Nice try.

  • PeoplePower

    CG – highly disappointing! It’s all about the “Red Menace” and “Fear of a Black Planet” with you, isn’t it?

    For one thing, we already *are* a Social Democracy, just not quite as much as we *need* to be.

    Were we a fully, purely capitalist country, there would be no welfare, no social security, no medicare, no public education and no safety net whatsoever. And no regulations at all – pure free market is anarchy of the wealthy and is horrible as a system, too many people get trampled to death. A controlled free market is better and provides some semblance of security, should times get tough. A free market with some strong social programs is *even* better.

    Have a bad year at the office and lose your job? Well, you’re out of luck and starve to death unless you can get a job really quickly…

    The Democratic Socialist Party of America? Oooh, scary. Sounds like they might want things like universal healthcare and college tuition being paid for. Oh no! That means we might end up like Great Britain, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Italy…etc. etc.

    You call him a “radical socialist”. I’m sorry, but that is your usual hyperbole. A radical socialist would want to make the country completely socialist, steering towards communist.

    I personally don’t want to go too far down the socialist path, but the capitalist path, for all of its positives, has a monstrous record of negatives that ruin lives. We need a better system.

    There are some very good things that can be done in a Social Democracy. We can do a lot more for the general welfare of the populace. And we can still have a free market and a marketplace of ideas.

    Or do you think it’s okay for some Americans to live in squalor, so long as you’re not one of them?

    In regards to your response to BenS. Nice. Nice attack on his beliefs. “No sane, reasonable person would write the things…”??? So, the entirity of Western Europe, filled with *our* ALLIES are all insane and unreasonable people??

    You seem so afraid of change CG. Please let go of your fears. You will not be destroyed if we socialize this country a little further.

    Not all of the buzzwords used by the right-wing talking-heads are as bad as they make them out to be.

  • Oregon Dem

    I am a lifelong Democrat. I have voted Dem in every election except for ’84 (my first), and I voted for Hillary in the primary. I have extreme worry that if Obama is elected, he will destroy the Democratic Party as we know it. If he takes a hard left turn turn come January, and takes us down a road to socialism, the Democrats will get destroyed at the polls, and it will take a lot longer than 12 years to get Congress. He could destroy the party for a generation with his extreme left leanings. It seems like a forward thinking Republican would almost hope for an Obama victory, as long term it will bring the GOP back to power, and will simultaneously clean all of the bad apples out of their party.

    Please save the party. To steal a phrase from the writer, lets vote for a real Democrat (Hillary) in 2012, and let socialism fade off into history

  • PeoplePower

    A real Democrat like Hillary? So, Oregon Dem, are you in favor of Corporate Welfare?

    The Democratic Leadership Council – big supporters of Hillary – are basically Republicans in Democratic clothing. Or the old, practically extinct, Liberal Republicans.

    If that’s your vision of the Democratic Party, that’s fine, but it’s just evidence of how the Democrats “big tent” is too big at times.

    The Republicans over the last 14 years have done an extraordinary job of purging their party of “good Republicans” – those liberal-leaning Republicans that used to exist. I think they might be called RINO’s (Republican in Name Only). For your conservatives out there, I use “good Republicans” to describe Republicans I could vote for (liberal-leaning, rather than the Gingrich-revolution types), not to disparage existing Republicans (at least not all of them 😉 ).

    To be honest, our best bet would be to remove the constricts on our election system that makes it nearly impossible to have more than two parties. It’s an acceptable tool to both parties to be able to label the other one evil malcontents that you can’t possibly vote for or they’ll destroy the country. That is, consign us all to voting for the lessor of two evils.

    The Republicans, at least, have been using this scheme masterfully for some time now.

    But neither party truly represents all of their supporters. They put up candidates who partially represent the party as a whole and then pound on their party’s members to vote straight ticket.

    Why? Why can’t the rules be set up to allow for solid candidates from other parties to run?

    One word. Control. Between the moderately conservative minded DLC Democrats and the Republicans, there’s a tacit agreement that they both win when it’s just the two of them fighting.

    I think it was Thomas Jefferson who was opposed to political parties. He had very good reasons to be opposed to them. They ruin what a democracy is truly about – and turn it into a “black & white” two-sided fight that makes the populace jaded and cynical and leaves them scratching their heads wondering what happened…

  • Oregon Dem,

    Thanks for your honesty. While I personally disagree with Hillary Clinton on most political issues, I don’t have the same kind of fear that comes from the thought of an Obama presidency. Hillary Clinton was not a radical socialist, like Obama is. I could have lived with Hillary as President, though I am in fear of Obama as President, if he somehow wins.

    You’re also right about people who care for the Democratic Party being viable the next time around. If Obama succeeds in pulling the party very far to the left, it will take a while before people come back around to the thought of a Democrat in the White House.

    Oregon Dem, I have often mulled over the thought, before Sarah Palin came along, of feeling like Obama can take the presidency just to let him fail. However, I no longer feel that would be best for the country. I would rather see McCain win in 2008 even if Hillary Clinton comes back and wins in 2012, I believe the country would be better off with her familiar brand of Democratic politics, not the socialism and wealth redistribution being touted by Obama.

    We used to be divided on basic issues like abortion, taxes, and maybe foreign policy for example. Now we’re being divided on the issue of socialism versus capitalism, it’s a scary time.

    I commend you for wanting to see the best for the country, as I do as well. We can disagree on other issues but we should all agree that socialist policies are not right for America.


    PeoplePower,

    You’re so predictable, but that’s OK. This article wasn’t written for you. It was written for people who are willing to open their eyes and ask themselves what they really care about, their country or their party?

    Oregon Dem opened up and shared what I suspect many Democrats who supported Hillary also feel, that Barack Obama is too far to the left, to openly socialist in his policies and they’re rejecting it.

    You even said yourself:

    “I personally don’t want to go too far down the socialist path, but the capitalist path, for all of its positives, has a monstrous record of negatives that ruin lives. We need a better system.”

    Well hold on tight, because if you elect Barack Obama and a democratically controlled congress, we’re headed much further down that path than you sound comfortable with.

    Americans like split government so nothing can go too far either way.

    You also said this:

    “Or do you think it’s okay for some Americans to live in squalor, so long as you’re not one of them?”

    I don’t think anyone living in squalor is ok, unless they ended up there due to their own poor decision making. I believe in helping my fellow man, I do not believe in giving Barack Obama free access to my checking account. I also would feel terrible if he helped himself to someone else’s checkbook and have it to me, it’s not my money, and it’s not his money.

    You don’t seem to understand the fact that I am very charitable. However, you seem to equate being charitable with expanding government bureaucracy. PeoplePower, you’re either too young to understand or too naïve to acknowledge that when the government raises taxes, they just find new things to waste the money on. The government regulates things and then causes even worse problems, like the housing crisis which has resulted from the Community Reinvestment Act forcing banks to give sub-prime loans.

    The federal government is the most wasteful entity we’ve ever seen in this nation, they will never be able to help someone more than I can personally help them through a private charity.

    PeoplePower, you seem to think that if we don’t all pay high taxes, then we’re not charitable people. That is worst load of big-government socialist crap I’ve ever read in my entire life. Stop counting on the government to run your life and solve your problems.

    You also said this:

    “You seem so afraid of change CG. Please let go of your fears. You will not be destroyed if we socialize this country a little further.”

    The problem though, PeoplePower, is that you can’t stop going further down that road once you start, don’t you see that? We will get enough pseudo-socialist policies from John McCain, we don’t need to go any further with Barack Obama at the helm since he will never put on the brake.

    What’s worse is that Barack Obama, in his own words, made the tax issue a racial issue in saying that “white wealthy executives” need to pay more taxes for inner city schools, clearly Obama is speaking of mostly African-American schools. If you want to argue about taxes, fine, but don’t start saying one race of people should be paying more than another, how un-American is that?

  • American Bred

    I am going to do my best to get this article out to as many people as I can during the next 12 days. Obama is clearly a fraud…

  • PeoplePower,

    I can respect this:

    “I think it was Thomas Jefferson who was opposed to political parties. He had very good reasons to be opposed to them. They ruin what a democracy is truly about – and turn it into a “black & white” two-sided fight that makes the populace jaded and cynical and leaves them scratching their heads wondering what happened…”

    I’m disgusted with the parties, but it’s what we have.

    By the way, there are few “good Democrats” too, like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. You can have the “good Republicans” you speak of, since they’re already Democrats.

    “If that’s your vision of the Democratic Party, that’s fine, but it’s just evidence of how the Democrats “big tent” is too big at times.”

    The Republican Party tent is too big as well, flush out the RINO’s!

  • American Bred

    Oregon Dem: I’m curious, where do you get most of your news from, and the information you have used to form your opinions about this election? Not a loaded question, just sincerely curious..

  • CG – I’m curious to know more about your background so I can get a sense of what has informed your views, but I can’t find a biography on this site. Can you tell us a little bit more about where you live and your personal history so I can get some context for your opinions?

  • PeoplePower

    CG – first, you’re over-blowing how “far to the left” Obama would bring this country. Let alone ignoring the fact that there will not only still be Republicans in Congress but Democrats who are conservative – we’ll very likely never socialize this country to the point you’re talking about.

    Second – don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say, “I’m looking for government to run my life or solve my problems.” I am, however, looking for government to provide a better social safety net than presently exists.

    I also certainly don’t expect that the government (e.g. paying taxes) be the only way someone be “charitable”. The social safety net(s) need to be paid for, but specific charities need help too, and those can be focused on by people for whom the given one is near & dear to their hearts.

    There are some serious holes in our system that throw far too many people under the bus.

    Third – Please do some research on the CRA. It is *not* a part of the CRA’s rules that lending institutions *must* lend money in risky ways. In fact, the rules have always clearly stated that they need to lend to “underserved areas in a fiscally responsible way” (not exact quote). The rules were set up to reduce red-lining and failures to lend money to people simply because they’re not in the best of neighborhoods. And, yes, that also often meant they were minorities, but not always.

    Deregulation and greed caused the crisis, as sub-prime lending seemed a profitable way to go, but it was a predatory practice that would not have been allowed had the Glass-Steagall Act still been in place (if I’m recalling my laws correctly) – a law reversed by the blind-capitalists of the Republican Party (and, I’m sure, some Democrats).

    Fourth – Poor decision making makes it okay (to you) for someone to be thrown under the bus? Okay, why is it that we’re giving money to the big companies who completely failed us “in order to save us”? Shouldn’t we let them flop and die? There’s a part of me that says ‘yes’, but the chain of destruction that would ensue would devastate the worker bees who are the primary producers of the country.

    Of course, now it’s coming out that these institutions we’re giving money to, but not taking temporary control of, are still paying out some $70 billion in salary and compensation to their CEO’s. Is that fair, right or just? H3ll no! But hey, it’s the way of your Republican Party and the “American Capitalist System” as you see it – vile and disgusting and ruinous of more people’s lives than paying a little extra in taxes could ever be.

    We should have bought controlling interests in the companies, thrown the horrible CEO’s out and brought the companies back to profitability (like Britain did with it’s banks recently). That is, “Federal Aid means Federal Interference.”

    Fifth – I could write a treatise about what I think we should do to fix this country. Raising taxes is only marginally necessary, *if* we clean up government. We can do more with the same, or less, if we control the hemorrhaging of money.

    You make me laugh by calling me too young or too naive, that latter being a bit of “the pot calling the kettle…”. I don’t want to write a book describing every last facet of how this country needs to be changed. I would be posting for a week and still wouldn’t get through to you.

    The 50,000-foot view is “a little more socialized, while maintaining a majority of capitalist principles.”

    Clearly, that can’t possibly be done if we demonize socialism and clearly it can’t be paid for if we have a bunch of wasteful idiots spending our money like drunken sailors.

    That does bring up a serious question for you. What do YOU think Socialism is? Please describe what it means to you and why it seems to terrify you so…

  • PeoplePower,

    You said the following incorrect statement:

    “Deregulation and greed caused the crisis, as sub-prime lending seemed a profitable way to go, but it was a predatory practice that would not have been allowed had the Glass-Steagall Act still been in place (if I’m recalling my laws correctly) – a law reversed by the blind-capitalists of the Republican Party (and, I’m sure, some Democrats).”

    Wrong! Deregulation did not cause this crisis. Haven’t you watched all the footage as Democrat after Democrat refused to allow Republicans to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac more? Perhaps you’re just so blinded by your partisanship that you can’t blame your own party for directly causing this housing crisis.

    You have Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and countless others who refused to allow more regulation on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you’re dead wrong on this issue, it’s almost laughable that you’re trying to argue with me on it.

    Republicans wanted to regulate Freddie and Fannie more but Democrats opposed it because Fannie and Freddie were lining their pockets with sweetheart loans, such as Chris Dodd, and donating big campaign money to them.

    “Fourth – Poor decision making makes it okay (to you) for someone to be thrown under the bus? Okay, why is it that we’re giving money to the big companies who completely failed us “in order to save us”? Shouldn’t we let them flop and die? There’s a part of me that says ‘yes’, but the chain of destruction that would ensue would devastate the worker bees who are the primary producers of the country.”

    You don’t know me very well, I opposed this $700 bailout plan, I was emailing my representatives threatening not to vote for them if they supported it. I oppose socialism, so I opposed this bailout.

    “You make me laugh by calling me too young or too naive, that latter being a bit of “the pot calling the kettle…”. I don’t want to write a book describing every last facet of how this country needs to be changed. I would be posting for a week and still wouldn’t get through to you.”

    Luckily we don’t live in your dictatorship so you don’t get to impose your ideas on the rest of us.

    You won’t “get through” to me because you’re dead wrong, you’re so blindly partisan that you march lockstep without question.

    See, the thing here is that I know you’re just sugar coating what you really believe. You know, as any rational person does, that when the government goes down the road of socialism, it doesn’t stop.

    I know you would love more socialism and you’re sitting there hoping, with all your might, that Obama is elected. Instead you claim to us that you don’t want to get “too socialist,” yet you support Obama and naively think that they won’t go “too far” to the left, what a joke.

    You may have if it with other people who will roll over to you, but I will call you out every time you’re wrong, and you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.

    Here watch all these Republicans, oops, I mean Democrats opposing regulation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

    Your Democrats sitting there telling us, in 2004, that there is no issue with Fannie and Freddie, all the while opposing Republican efforts to regulate them more.

    You will not hoodwink everyone into blaming this on Bush or capitalist principles. There was no capitalism at work here, only corrupt government entities backed up by the Democrats like Barney Frank.

    PeoplePower, you need to stop feeding us Democratic talking points and does some research for once, stop feeding us the same tired lines. Everyone knows the Fannie/Freddie housing mess was the fault of Democrats in congress.

    Here, educate yourself more on the housing crisis:

    I will reiterate, you’re either too young or too naïve to believe the government always knows what’s best, as you seem to blindly believe.

    Socialism, just to inform you since you don’t seem to know, can take many forms. I am not speaking of harmless things like the post office or your local police department.

    The brand of socialism I am speaking is the brand Barack Obama and his Chicago Democratic Socialist Party friends are selling, which says you tax successful people and then send checks to people who don’t even pay taxes. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, the Barack Obama manifesto.

    It’s called redistribution of wealth so everything is “fair” in the eyes of liberal politicians.

    That’s the socialism I “fear,” just like millions of other hard working Americans who see through Obama’s plans.

    The housing crisis is a perfect example of government agencies forcing banks to make loans to people who can’t pay them back. That’s what was at play here, not capitalist principles which would have led banks to lend money to people who could pay it back.

    If elected, Barack Obama will bring us more socialist policies of the government dictating our financial system.

    PeoplePower, you are hiding your true feelings, please just come clean and tell us you would like to embrace heavy-handed government socialism. Stop pretending to minimize it.

    I am free-market capitalist, if you couldn’t tell. I believe government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.

    If you are sitting there like PeoplePower waiting for the government to bail you out and solve your problems, I feel sorry for you.

  • Bill Hedges

    Conservative Gal–I hope you have contacted McCain campaign or appropriate news media with this Obama old breaking news. I have not seen this on T.V.. No wonder he wants his friendly people to vote early. You can be the last JOE THE PLUMBER nail that stops Obama’s bit to be President If you have not already did it. Only 10 days to go….Did you know Cindy McCain tee-peed Barry Goldwaters house as a youngster.

  • PeoplePower

    CG – ever-more aggressive and angry…nice.

    So, since we’re not in a dictatorship I can’t state my views and opinions about a better system? They are, of course, my opinion and my views. I don’t hold sway or power to present my ideas as a *rule*.

    Of course, both McCain and Bush have lamented that we’re not a dictatorship, “because they’re easier to run.” But that’s a different story.

    Now on to the spliced and diced videos. I can’t verify the truth of what you claim, but your rhetoric is so heated and the tales are spun so heavily from a McCain-supporting direction, I tend to doubt their full disclosure.

    Still, they did give me pause to consider what you’re saying – then again, I saw this in the same Wikipedia entry where one video seems to have spliced together things claim a “forcing into subprime lending” – a phrase I could not find at all in the entire article:

    Under the heading “Housing advocacy groups”:
    “Housing advocacy groups were also leaders in the fight against subprime lending in low- and moderate-income communities, “In fact, community advocates had been telling the Federal Reserve about the dangers of subprime lending since the 1990s”, according to Inner City Press. “For example, Bronx-based Fair Finance Watch commented to the Federal Reserve about the practices of now-defunct non-bank subprime lender New Century, when U.S. Bancorp bought warrants for 24% of New Century’s stock. The Fed, rather than take any action on New Century, merely waited until U.S. Bancorp sold off some of the warrants, and then said the issue was moot.” However, subprime loans were so profitable, that they were aggressively marketed in low-and moderate-income communities, even over the objections and warnings of housing advocacy groups like ACORN.”

    And under the heading “Relation to 2008 financial crisis”:

    “Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][32] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps” one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.[64] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made “high-priced loans” at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[65] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[66]

    Assistant professor of law Alan M. White[67] notes that some abuses blamed on the CRA actually occurred because the Housing and Urban Development and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight under the Bush administration allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fulfill their affordable housing goals by buying subprime mortgage-backed securities. These affordable housing goals were motivated by similar aims, but not part of the CRA.”

    Note the last sentence. Freddie & Fannie were allowed to count *buying* subprime mortgage-backed securities to fulfill their affordable housing goals.

    Now, I’m sure you won’t bother to read this, as clearly you don’t want to think that you are wrong. I will continue to research the claims you have made to see if I can find true support for what you say that has nothing to do with bashing Obama and everything to do with trying to find all of the sources of the problems.

    Finally, to claim that the Democrats could block *anything* the Republicans wanted to do in 2003 thru late 2006 is just plain ridiculous. The Republicans controlled enough of Congress to push through anything they wanted and had the backing of a Republican President.

    I’m not saying they didn’t try, but there may be *other* reasons why the attempts failed – some possibilities: it wasn’t really about regulating Fannie/Freddie but about controlling/changing the CRA; some or several Republicans sided with the Democrats blocking the regulations.

    Now – back to the Socialist discussion. Who on earth ever said I’m sitting here waiting for the government to bail me out and solve my problems?? OH. YOU DID. You automatically assign “slacker socialist” to me w/o knowing what I intended. For that, consider me officially insulted.

    Wealth redistribution is a common argument used to cry foul when the wealthy get taxed at a higher rate than the middle class. It’s a class-bating buzz phrase. Obama, admittedly, stepped into the label by talking about “spreading it around some”. But it’s not the case that Bill Gates will effectively be sending a check to me (despite spam email claims 😉 ). But, he might be paying extra to help cover a stronger safety net, which I’m okay with (and I’d bet he is too).

    Extra socialist programs? Yes, but this one really is a benefit to businesses and the general welfare of the people all wrapped up in one. Universal Healthcare – yeah, I know, it sounds scary but hear me out:
    — A healthy populace will cost the country much less in the long run (lower medical bills overall)
    — A populace that is insured will cost the country less in the short run (emergency room visits are brutally expensive as compared to preventative care). Proper pre- and post-natal care will reduce the excessive costs of unhealthy children and mothers (and may reduce birth defects)
    — Most, if not all, of industrial nations provide universal healthcare. Our companies can compete on a more level playing field as the cost of employees will go down – and, guess what, unburden our companies with this and promote healthy workers, innovation will soar, as will new small businesses because people can leave their work-based healthcare behind to take a gamble and start their own companies (and you unleash our innovative spirit…lookout for the new fangled flying, singing gadget that pumps the internet right into your mind! 😉 )

    Now, the issue, as always is how to pay for this. Clearly, a tax increase would be needed, but the cost of it would actually (overall) be lower than for-profit healthcare. Trust me, I know this as I used to work for one up until I was laid off this summer.

    However, conceptually it is a great idea. It also provides safety for people in my situation and the thousands of others who have lost their job due to down-sizing. Imagine, having health insurance whether you’re working or not. If you get laid off, you don’t get brutalized by COBRA costs and don’t have to worry about pre-existing conditions.

    And, more importantly, if you can afford to pay your other bills for a long enough time, perhaps you *can* start that dream company of pet widgets that purr when you rub their bellies. Whatever.

    I will research this more and look for non-partisan sources, or matched-up partisan sources, to get the true picture by reading between the political BS. I won’t rely on someone else’s splicing of video that could easily remove the context of remarks that would negate the argument they’re attempting.

    If you do the same, perhaps you’ll find that it’s not all the Democrats fault and perhaps I’ll find that it’s not all Bush’s & the Republicans’ fault (FYI – I don’t believe it is *all* their faults. I wouldn’t dream of claiming that all Democrats are perfectly innocent or w/o their own corruption).

    I’m sure you’ll take my disagreeing with you as blind support for Obama. You’d be wrong, but that’s okay I don’t expect you to believe me anyway.

    Knowing the source of the problem will greatly help in finding the right solutions for it.

  • Bill Hedges

    PEOPLE POWER– The loans was to be given in the normal way to low income areas. Sub-prime was not intended. Is a phase for imporper, no qualification home loans. Brought about through ACORN.Coperate welfare is incorrect tern, sub-prme bail-out is more accuate

  • I have not and will not change my vote, still voting for Barack Obama. This will probably bring more light on to Palin’s wanting to separate Alaska from the US, bring it on, buddy. Let’s not forget McCain’s ties with the Nazis.

  • Bill Hedges

    Debranne- Vote you will. But Sarah was never member of AIP. And AIP is not for separation. Ask Conservative Gal. Your Nazis mention is a new one Things people think.

  • Oregon Dem

    To answer American Bred’s question:

    I get my news from the usual sources…CNN, Fox News, internet (sites, blogs, etc).

    Don’t know why that is of interest to you, but there you go!

  • Steve

    let’s hear that dirty word: Socialism! Perhaps a pinch this much reviled socialism is exactly what the US needs. Healthcare which has been neglected for decades, unemployment benefits can’t provide, a fair distribution of wealth instead of a dramatic increase of the gap between rich and poor? Never since 1929 has such a small percentage of people held so much of the wealth in the US.
    The cold war is over, communism is done, but putting a human face on right wing capitalism is worth fighting for and nothing Obama should be ashamed of.

  • Babs

    Great job, CG, and in case none of you have noticed – this is not an opinion piece, this is backed up with facts and photos. And a picture is worth a thousand words, isn’t it now?

    This is further proof that we do not know Barack Obama. I would like to see the rest of the member list for this party. I’ll bet you we’d recognize some names.

    I think Sean Hannity would have fun with this one. Let’s send it to him.

  • Anyone believing this garbage should read more deeply. The New Party was a national movement. It’s well documented. The DSA and other socialist parties do a lot of good, organizing unions where they are needed, and doing a lot of community organizing in poor communities that need help. The New Party worked with such groups because we all need to unite together to help our fellow Americans. Politically speaking, the New Party is actually more akin to the Social Democrats of Europe, a common, popular, and often times elected party. Instead of scare-mongering people with the S-word, which is wrongfully linked to the C-word, Communism, why don’t you have an actual discussion of policy (communism a sub-form of Socialism, one that failed and is useless, and not at all supported by Barack Obama).

  • Frederik

    People do not argue with Obamabots. They will bring you down on their level and beat you with their experience. They will never change their mind. As far as they are concerned Obama could be a child’s pedophile and they would still be voting for him. This is how Hitler managed to seize power in Germany and Austria in 1930s. The power of the perception…

  • Susan

    Do you the American people really want the government to control your life?
    How much money you have, what doctors, hospitals,etc., what schools your children and grandchildren attend, what you read in the media, what you hear on the radio, and more?

  • Babs

    Through your links, CG, I read with interest the 2008 convention (photos of speakers standing in front of a banner that reads “Democratic Socialists”). Seems the theme this year was Universal Health Care – something Socialists seem to be really in favor of.

    http://www.chicagodsa.org/d2008/index.html

  • Babs

    Congrats, CG, I see this link all over gretawire! Guess you’ll be getting some good hits today, girl!

  • Stalin

    Great job CG. I did a little research of my own this morning. There is shockingly little out there on this subject. In fact, when you type in Chicago New Party in the news section of Google, your article comes up first. WOW! I’ve already sent this link to everyone I know and have told them to forward it on to anybody that is voting for Obama. We need to get this out! Grassroots baby!

  • Babs

    I’ve done the same, Stalin. I’ve posted it at hannity.com, gretawire.com, mccainspace, and the hillary forums. Those hillary people jump on stuff. *LOL*

  • PeoplePower

    Unfettered capitalism is flawed, so sayeth Alan Greenspan…

    I guess there might be something to be said about regulations and oversight being important.

    There are some things that simply need to have controls on them: our food supply, our working conditions, the rules surrounding our financial markets (and many more).

    Is that socialist? Yeah, kind of.

    Is it good for the population as a whole? Yes! Definitely.

    When you tie the value of a company so intrinsically to the share price, and the CEO bonuses get very heavily increased if the share price goes up, decisions become all about the stock price and the value of the products and employees and working conditions, etc., get diminished. Greed often steps in and trumps solid leadership…

    Should there be restrictions on CEO compensation? Absolutely! It should be based on the average employee’s salary (the producers of the company), the value of the product(s) on the market and the strength of the company (earnings, profitability, growth potential, etc.).

    Is that how it’s done today? I don’t think so, but perhaps in some companies, and I would bet that if this is the case, these companies are doing much better in this wildly fluctuating stock market than those who tried to gear everything towards their share price.

    Now, when it comes to universal healthcare, don’t demonize it before you think about the overall benefits and compare the costs of it to the costs of private HMO’s calling the shots. Obama’s plan isn’t even universal healthcare, but it still has merit; and perhaps may be a better compromise to the wholly private path vs. wholly socialized path.

    Can you imagine the freedom of stepping away from your work-based health insurance to finally create that new product you’ve dreamed about for years, but couldn’t because you would lose healthcare coverage for your whole family?? I can.

    Can you imagine the reduced stress of losing your job, but still having healthcare coverage for your family? COBRA is brutally expensive and makes matters worse especially if you don’t get a new job immediately, as it will eat through your savings extra fast (if you have any). With universal healthcare, that would be one less stressor for you to deal with after getting laid off…

    *Some* socialism is good and the slippery-slope argument has only a morsel of merit. A better blending of socialism is needed; one which is stable and known, rather than ever-changing with the winds of who controls Congress. Some things need stricter rules; others need less strict rules, but complete institutional control is not what is being sought, nor would it be good.

    Pure, unfettered capitalism is bad. Ask Alan Greenspan. It took him over 20 years to realize it, will it take you that long to figure it out too?

  • So, no bio for CG? I am sincerely interested in her background. I’m not even asking for a full name (which is bare minimum for a journalist) or address. Just a basic bio that might be found on any columnists website.

  • Stalin

    Stewf:

    What is your bio?

  • PeoplePower

    Stewf – why do you want to know her bio?

    This is a blog, with people posting opinions and positions based on their beliefs and the facts (or pseudo-facts) they find important.

    It should be clear from her screen name that she’s conservative and female. It should also be clear from her posts in many of the articles here that she has strong conservative leanings.

    What else would you possibly need to know?

    I can’t fathom a reason you would have the right to know – this isn’t an official press release from any organization or, as far as I know, a site funded by any campaign or tax dollars.

  • Stewf, and all:

    I’ve been working on a bio section for some general background information on all our commentary writers. Michael has been pestering me to do so as well, I’m working on a little description which each author can fill out under their author archive to give as much or as little information as they’re comfortable with.

    That being said, nobody here is a “journalist” per se, we’re just individuals like yourself posting news and opinions, as PeoplePower rightfully noted.

  • Thanks for the kudos for everyone here wanting to get the truth out about Obama’s radical ties. I see the opponents to this article can’t counter the content, they simply try to argue why socialism isn’t a bad thing, that’s funny.

    We must continue to circulate this information so people actually know what they’ll be voting for if they vote Obama. He’s a radical socialist who sought out other radical left-wing socialists in Chicago.

    Keep in mind, especially you lockstep Obama defenders, that Obama chose to become a Chicago New Party member. He could have just run as a liberal Democrat, instead he affiliated and aligned himself with these radical socialists to infiltrate the Democratic Party and take it further to the left, which is what he’s currently doing as I type this.

    You can’t deny it any longer, a vote for Obama is a vote for the radical socialist ideas espoused by the Chicago New Party and the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America.

    I’ll post a bio later, I don’t want it distracting from this story the same way the Obama campaign tried to distract from Obama’s answer on “spreading the wealth” to Joe the Plumber. That is the Obama campaign’s standard operating procedure, attack the messenger when you don’t like the truth they’ve uncovered.

    Don’t get duped by Obama’s moderate talk, get the truth.

    Please vote against Obama and his Chicago New Party radical socialist friends on November 4th.

  • Bill Hedges

    CG- Your article headline is not showing up under HOME

  • Babs

    That’s because it’s a commentary, Bill, not a news article.

    CG, the National Review has picked it up, and also noquarter, I did a google again this afternoon. It’s spreading. 😉

  • Santa Monica Dude

    You people talk about socialism like it is a bad thing. I am a proud member of the Peace and Freedom party. All my life I have never voted for a “mainstream candidate” for president because I feel both major parties are captives of evil corporations. That will change this year. I finally have a candidate that believes in what I believe. Apparently most of America agrees with me since Obama has this thing in the bag. Capitalism has failed and this latest debacle should be headstone of this flawed idea. Our nation is at a crossroads and Obama is the man to take us down the right path. Those of you on the “right side” please give Obama the mandate he needs to save this country (fillibuster proof senate etc.)

    I would take Obama’s ideas one step further and DEMAND:

    -Open all borders now
    -100% taxation of all income over $300,000, 50% taxation of all income over 250,000
    -A living wage of $25 per hour
    -Free wealth care for all
    -Government takeover of all major industries
    -A “net worth tax” of 5% per year on all net worth over $1,000,000
    -Immediate destruction of all firearms in the United States except for police officers
    -Disband our military. We can get much farther by talking with those who oppose us and try to understand them rather than fight an immoral war that has cost thousands of lives and we spend billions a month on.

    These are just a few ideas. Like many P & F’rs I proudly support Obama. Finally! a candidate worth voting for!

    You right wing nuts……THERE’S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT! THIS IS THE PEOPLE’S COUNTRY NOW!

  • You’ve yet to explain how the New Party and/or the Democratic Socialists of America are in fact, radical socialism. Socialist ideas were used by FDR to create the New Deal, and by Congress when it came to the bailout (essentially, nationalizing companies/the banking industry). There is a difference between radical socialism (think communism, actual physical taking of wealth by govt without compensation, population relocation, etc) and the left as espoused by the New Party and the DSA (strong unions, strong rights for workers, health care and welfare rights for the poor and homeless, etc). Additionally, the taxation rate for the very wealth in the 50s was actually over 80%, Obama wants to raise it from 36 to 39.

    You’ve still said nothing important, by the way…

  • St. Lucie

    Hey! William Ayers comments on this blog? This article needs to be spread all over the internet. Shall begin….

  • Bill Hedges

    -SETH Obama changes his stance to get elected. Obama will follw whar Conservative wrote about Obama’s real belief in her article. See how Ayers and Rev Wright fit into the Obama of CG article .

  • Bill Hedges

    Seth- You are right about the high taxes for the rich. When Regan lowered them it begain the longest BULL MAkET in our history. Obama wants to raIse tAXES after Democrats killed our economy with sub-prime.

  • melinda

    i have lived in chicago all my life and i remember obamas first run statewide , wow this is news to me either your crazy or off your meds . thier are alot of crooked politicians in chicago dont get me wrong but obamas not one of them you should be ashamed of your self

  • Bill Hedges

    Melinda–Maybe you know everthing about Obama. Prove Conservation Gal wrong. With provable facts, as she did. Soures that are reliable and can be varafied. Just as Conservation Gal Did.

  • On the bio: I don’t think I have the right to know anything about CG. I just think it’s wise for the sake of this website and CG’s credibility to post one. This column could possibly have a lot more traction if undecided voters had an opportunity to know more about its author.

    Glad to hear it’s on the way at some point. It don’t think it would necessarily “distract” from your case, CG. It should support it!

  • PeoplePower

    Okay CG – how about this for a little questioning of this article:

    Authenticity check – I’d like to see the paper(s) used to scan in the pictures to verify that they weren’t simply a cleverly photo-shopped trick. Barring that, I’d like the other people pictured with Obama to confirm the existence of the Chicago New Party and that Obama was a member and not simply endorsed by them…

    Consistency check – while one picture refers to Obama as a “member of NP” the other picture refers to him as someone who was endorsed by the NP (relavent because the same picture, 2nd one, mentions 3 endorsed people & 2 members, explicitly speaking of the members separately).

    Voracity check – you repeat a claim that the CNP represents a “radical socialist agenda” but I find no such evidence. Rather, they’re talking about inclusion of a little more socialist-style programs being included in government. If you want “radical socialist” just read the post by “Santa Monica Dude”. That’s radical peacenik socialism – 100% tax on people making over $1 million? Eliminating the military *and* our own guns??? Even *I* am not for that! 😉

    Fear check – even if Obama were a member of the Chicago New Party *and* it was a *radical* socialist organization, the ability to push through a truly radical socialist agenda will be greatly thwarted by Democrats (not all are liberal) and Republicans.

    Reality check – after many years of a radical capitalist experiment, we’ve seen the numerous failures – an extremely weak dollar, a weakened and over-stretched military, a worn and beaten populace at home, a horrible image abroad (important as it affects our influence with our allies) and a failing (and flailing) economy; we *need* to steer the country to the left again to fix the things that have gone very wrong…

    Oh, and another reality check – if Obama wins and the Democrats control 60+ Senate seats and enough House seats to have full control; we won’t see the same sort of lock-step governing we’ve seen under Bush. The Democrats have a proven record of “eating their own.” They throw each other under the bus frequently, so I’m quite confident that they’ll lead a lot more equitably for the entire country and not just for the Democrats of the country!

    Still – I *will* be watching them too. And I am a vocal participant in this democracy; ask my House/Senate members! (and those of many of the committees)

  • dale

    I see where the connection to this group is new I suppose, but what exactly is in here, or in the policies of this group that conflict with any of Obama’s publicly stated positions?

    Your article, though thorough, doesn’t actually provide any new policy arguments or even character assassinations. You’ve been calling him things like radical socialist for ages, what’s the difference if he belonged to a group that shared is publicly stated views? That just makes logical sense.

    Oh and People Power, is it true Democrats really throw people under buses? Maybe that explains why CG says Obama wants to throw your mum’s under buses. Is this some strange new policy of throwing rich people under buses and giving their wealth to the lazing non-tax paying illegal immigrant minorities?

    We have to bold enough to ask these questions.

  • Babs

    Seth, the New Deal hampered and delayed economic progress in the Depression. Check your history.

  • Dave

    Barack Obama is/was a MEMBER of Democratic Socialist of America.

    New Ground 45
    March – April, 1996

    “Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election”

    “Barak Obama
    Barak Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer’s old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore.”

    “Mr. Obama graduated from Columbia University and promptly went into community organizing for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens on the far south side of Chicago. He went on to Harvard University, where he was editor of the Harvard Law Review. He graduated with a law degree. In 1992, he was Director of Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration campaign that made Carol Moseley Braun’s election to the U.S. Senate much easier than it would have been. At present, he practices law in Judson Miner’s law firm and is President of the board of the Annenberg Challenge Grant which is distributing some $50 million in grants to public school reform efforts.”

    “What best characterizes Barak Obama is a quote from an article in Illinois Issues, a retrospective look at his experience as a community organizer while he was completing his degree at Harvard:”

    “… community organizations and organizers are hampered by their own dogmas about the style and substance of organizing. Most practice … a ‘consumer advocacy’ approach, with a focus on wrestling services and resources from outside powers that be. Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities.” (Illinois issues, September, 1988)”

    “Luckily, Mr. Obama does not have any opposition in the primary. His opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot. But if you would like to contribute to his campaign, make the check payable to Friends of Barak Obama, 2154 E. 71st, Chicago, IL 60649. If you would like to become involved in his campaign, call the headquarters at (312) 363-1996.”

  • Babs

    Great update, it seems it doesn’t take much time to find new information on this connection. It makes one wonder why the MSM has not done their job. They certainly and illegally trashed Joe the Plumber in record time, not to mention Sarah Palin.

    That speech on the stump by Obama there, he’s sure come a long way since 2004. He just sounds like any other politician in that video. Now he’s the Messiah.

  • Dave

    Wow…he’s beend talking “redistribution” for LONG TIME.

    “The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.”

    http://web.archive.org/web/20010906162143/www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html

  • Deb

    BenS.. So you may be familiar with Plymouth Plantation. There is a sign that says “Those who work eat. Those who don’t, don’t eat.” So if people don’t want to work hard why should they get money from the people who do work hard?
    How many people here believe there should be equal pay for all? Obama doesn’t. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html
    Obama also doesn’t believe we have the freedom to ask any questions we want to understand better what he really stands for. See what they have done to Joe the Plumber and I am sure they will do the same to the news inteviewer in Florida. This should show you what is going to happen to our freedom.

  • PeoplePower

    Dale – it was a figure of speech. The Democrats, as a whole, disagree with each other internally more often and more publicly than the Republicans; especially the Republicans of late.

    That, to me, simply means they are more inclined to recognize that there is more than one way to fix a problem.

    I know there are Republicans who disagree with the “one solution” message. McCain *used* to be one of them, but now seems to be yet another parrot for the party line.

    Dave – an endorsement does not equal membership. I’m sure if we looked, some reprehensible organizations and individuals have endorsed both candidates. Does that mean that the candidates agree with them or are members? Of course not.

    The Chicago DSA and New Party talk of socializing aspects of the country to make it better for all Americans. You may not agree with their methods, but their goal is to make America better. I would suspect that the people who agree with this article disagreed with Obama’s policies before this mild association was created.

    Certainly a different tune than the Alaskan Independence Party which has talked brazenly and openly about hating America and about seceding from the Union. The association between Palin and the AIP is stronger than that of Obama with the DSA/CNP. But because the author and her supporters support Palin’s policies, they don’t bat an eye at what they consider “trumped up charges.”

    As always, when they can’t win the argument on policy, they try to smear the opponent. The Republicans are much more rabid followers of this approach, but the Democrats aren’t free of it either.

    This attacking back and forth engenders cynicism and anger in the populace. They tend not to vote, or even participate, in the democracy; as they just feel it won’t make a difference.

    Plus, the nastier they are to each other, the harder it will be for the winner to work in a bi-partisan way. And out the window goes the chance of getting really solid reform and progress done.

    Babs – what “economic progress” was delayed and hampered? The instituting of unfettered capitalism? The ability for the wealthy to become super-wealthy at the expense of everyone else? These things were what was reversed by the New Deal…

  • Dave

    PeoplePower, in order to receive an endorsement from DSA, they require you to sign a contract to move forward with their agenda.

  • Dave

    “Chicago New Party Update”

    “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.”

    “Chicago New Party Update”
    by Bruce Bentley

    A”bout 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics. There are 300 members in Chicago. In order to build an organizational and financial base the NP is sponsoring house parties. Locally it has been successful both fiscally and in building a grassroots base. Nationwide it has resulted in 1000 people committed to monthly contributions. The NP’s political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to “win”. This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. 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 political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat.”

    “Michael Chandler thanked the NP for its support in his electoral victory. His achievements to date included obtaining an increase of 30 police in the 24th Ward, citizen involvement in street clean-up and establishment of a 24th Ward Organization. William Delgado is exploring whether to run for State Rep in the 3rd District. He is a former social worker and spoke with compassion and dynamism. He considers himself a community activist who wants to be an advocate for change in the community. His presence in political office would be a benefit to the democratic left.”

    “Indeed it was an exciting evening because the NP has two crucial components. First, the NP is a true “Rainbow Coalition” consisting of both young and aged African-Americans, Hispanics and Caucasians. Although ACORN and SEIU Local 880 were the harbingers of the NP there was a strong presence of CoC and DSA (15% DSA). Moreover a good 8% were younger Generation X’ers who are critically needed. A more diverse representation of Labor is missing. Secondly, the NP is taking “action.” Four political candidates were “there” seeking NP support. The NP is strategically organizing via house parties and tactically entering only elections that they can win. Furthermore they are organizing a campaign on the “Living Wage Ordinance” in the Chicago City Council.”

    “The NP has the following working committees: political, membership/fund-raising, public relations, and legal/finance. If you would be interested in participating in one of these committees or in helping out with any other New Party activities, contact Jeff Caveney at (312) 939-7490”

    http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html

  • Ramona Acord

    I just watched Danny Davis video where he was introducing Barack, around time Obama won Illinois Senate race. Someone needs to show that remark about 87 million being spent in Irag and play it against the millions (not sure amount, but big) Barack got allocated to REsko to renovate Chicago housing in the area, then show the renovations, NONE DONE!

  • Frank

    aaah look out, Radical Barack Obama is coming to destroy America!!!

    ohhh wait…..

    Bush has already done that

    Please CG, grow up

  • This article clearly fingers Barack Obama as a socialist. He has not changed his political views since the 1990’s. The comment about “spreading the wealth” to “Joe the plumber” tells all.

  • Deb

    Here is another site if you haven’t seen it.
    http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-international-socialist-connections/
    It seems as though all the Obama followers have no intention of really learning about the real Obama. If you read enough it’s hard to understand why more people aren’t concerned.

    Santa Monica Dude… I bet you can’t wait for Obama to make this a 3rd world country.
    At least Palin was able to modified the existing severance tax, which works more or less like a sales tax on resources taken out of the ground. (A windfall profit tax, of course, is based on profits.) Just by the way, how is it she’s both “in the pocket of the oil companies” and supposedly instituting a windfall profits tax anyway?
    Now can you tell me what Obama has done to get money back to all the citizens. He and his fellow democrats screwed us on the mortgage crisis. And if you don’t believe it spend some time looking it up.
    Obama and Madeline Talbott
    Obama and ACORN
    Barney Frank and Herb Moses.
    Then look at how many times Bush and other republicans wanted more regulations as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got bigger. But the democrats said they didn’t need regulations.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

    Then there is the nonprofit hospital that Michelle works at who has been known to charge up to 3Xs the rates to people who have no insurance than the people who have insurance. And I am sure that alot of the people who don’t have insurance are the poor people living in the slums that Obama’s friend Rezko owns and received a bundle of money for.

    Obama also doesn’t believe in equal pay for all. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/378772_murdockonline12.html

    Congress has received a lower approval rating than Bush and the majority in congress are democrats.

    I have read plenty on both McCain and Obama. McCain was not my choice in the primaries but I am going with the lesser of 2 evils.

  • IndiMinded

    Wouldn’t your claim that Obama is a socialist in disguise become a great deal stronger if you gathered the positions he was essentially endorsing through these organizations and contrasted them to the positions he is currently taking?

    I mean, it seems like you’ve done a great deal of research into this, but not to expose any hidden agenda he may have. It seems to me like you really did this just so that when you rant about Obama being an evil socialist, your venom has more credibility.

    I’m sure that helps you vent, but it’s not very productive, and it doesn’t help to further educate a single voter on the important issues you seem so worked up about.

    You have some interesting information here, and it seems well researched. But as it is, this is a well-documented case in name calling. I don’t really understand why you bothered.

  • Scott

    I can’t believe there are still left-wingers who are trying to pin the blame for the financial crisis on Bush and McCain.
    It is one thing to offer a critique of the free market but unfortunately the left depends on lies and emotionalism rather than actually understanding anything. These are the same morons who obsess over Wal-Mart in spite of the fact that Obama’s own economic advisor Jason Furman – when he was a real working economist rather than a campaign apparatchik – debunked every last bit of their emotion-based economic illiteracy.

    Not only are the Republicans the only ones who tried to fix this Fannie/Freddie mess but Glass-Steagall’s repeal occurred under Clinton’s presidency and he signed it after it passed with 91 votes in the senate. Even though it is moronic to blame that deregulation for what subsequently happened it is brazenly dishonest to try and blame the then governor of Texas and Republicans in general. This has seriously been the most shameless campaign I’ve ever witnessed.

  • FedUp

    Iam so tired of the political garbage with each party holding the other to blame for the lack of action from congress, pork barrel spending, and decay of any form of true honesty within. For at least the last 16 years this country has been divided by political party affiliation and neither side willing to compromise. Maybe now is the time to seriously think about dividing the country into a Rebulican Nation and Democratic Nation, allowing persons or businesses to choose where they want to reside! Bring back the North and South divide or break it into East and West…I don’t care.
    I am tired of hearing how the blacks are going to riot if Obama loses or how people will leave the country if their party isn’t voted in. Let us divide and then we will see who is successful and who isn’t. “United” States that is a joke, we haven’t been united in years about anything. Oh wait…ok maybe for a brief period after 9/11 but then it was back to the blame game.
    So for me, I am ready for the division…I am ready to end all this political warfare. It is time to come clean and let go…we are not and will not be “United”. It is time to Divide!!

  • Steve

    I commend you for the amount of work you put into this CG, but the writng style makes this all sound much more spectacular than it actually. Putting ‘radical’, ‘extreme’ and ‘alarming’ or variants in almost every phrase of this piece detracts from its content.

    How is Obama ‘hiding’ his socialist tendancies? Listen to his message and it’s obvious he doesn’t shy away from useful ideas that would bring more equality to the US, just because they could be labelled ‘socialist’. Socialism is not a dirty word and does not herald the death of America as some would like to believe.

    Does Obama defend certain socialist ideas? yes. But then again aren’t there already socialist measures ingrained in America? Aren’t things like welfare and healthcare in essence socialist ideas? Isn’t the nationalization of banks and the far reaching government intervention in essence socialist? yes. Is this necessarely ‘alarming’ and ‘extreme’? No.

    The past 8 years have shown the risks of unrestricted capitalism, and the bankrupcy of trickle down ideas, which is still Mccain’s economic philosophy. If anything these past years have shown, it’s that wealth does not trickle down, the US has seen a dramatic rise in the gap between rich and poor.

    Oh, before anyone calls me an Obamabot, I have no immediate stake in the US election and even leaned towards Mccain early on. I’m Belgian and live in Central Africa. Seeing what Obama could do for US reputation around the world, and how a Mccain presidency would inevitably make them see it as Bush 3 no matter what he would say or do, is enough reason alone to vote Obama.

    Please make America the most respected and admired nation on earth again and do away with these politics of fear. This time no fear of terrorism, but fear of socialism. Obama isn’t dangerous, take a step back and look at it from an international perspective, he’s just what the US needs.

  • happyinexpatland

    Here’s a quote from Palin:
    “We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

    Comes from an interview she gave to the New Yorker (before becoming part of the McCain trainwreck).

    So, is she Socialist? National Socialist? You decide.

  • Babs

    Steve, we in America don’t need to look at this from an “international perspective”. That’s not how this country was made, and it’s not how it runs. We’re the world’s super power for a reason. Others follow us – we don’t follow others.

    Actually, I’m finished calling Obama a Socialist. I see now from this research and my own that he is not a Socialist – he a Marxist.

  • Marian

    Why isn’t the McKain campaign using this information? If McKain simply started quoting some of this material, it would scare the pants off the hear-no-see-no-speak-no-evil “baby bird” supporters of the B.O. (pun intended) offensive who just open their mouths and swallow everything he says as if their political digestive system has no eyes, heart, mind, or conscience. I’m not important enough to be able to land this message in the hands of someone who can land it in the hands of someone who will take it to McKain’s campaign manager, but I can sure pray that if you’re the right person who can, God will get this material in your hands for you to carry the incriminating truth to the top where it might just set all the political captives free. Thanks for your time and hard work!

  • Michael

    There are actually a plethora of different kinds of Marxisms— and today, Karl Marx himself would probably not associate himself with any of them.

    That said, this country was founded on international perspectives– and grew from it as the Statue of Liberty stands to remind us.

    I don’t think having power means you get to ignore others– it simply means you now have a responsibility to use that power wisely (and perhaps, listen to others in doing so).

    One of our current challenges is dealing with international relations– whether it is North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc. I think McCain and Obama recognize this necessity.

  • Babs

    Michael, you’re right in the context you’re using, Steve is not. During the last few months Americans have been bullied (and you know it’s true, just follow youdecide) by international posters who have been less than gracious about our country and our freedom of choice. I have begun to resent this personally, and I’m not the only one. This election is about AMERICA, not North Koreans, Chinese, Saudia Arabians, or anyone else. America has supported these countries for years, and I think they’re just wanting more. That’s why they want Obama in the White House so badly. I think they would like to see America no better off than they are, because misery loves company.

    I’m not going there with them. If America is so blind to elect a Socialist Democratic President and filibuster proof Democratic Congress for the sake of “international relations”, then I guess the damage that will do will be deserved by those who vote that way. Unfortunately, they’re dragging the rest of us down with them into the Monarchy.

  • DJS

    CG and Babs…this site I am sure will interest both of you.
    http://obamaimpeachment.org/

  • Babs

    DJS, this site has been around for a long time, but it has gotten no traction. I can’t say that it should, it’s parallel, really, to the impeach Bush and charge him with treason petitions. Neither will go anywhere.

  • Steve

    I don’t see where I would have bullied anyone or have been less than gracious about America. I love the place, what I’m seeing from an international perspective is just that less and less people do so as well. Improved international relations are just one part of the puzzle, but a very important one that cannot just be shrugged off. A Mccain presidency would not be able to heal the wounds, if only because of appearing to be Bush 3, although I personally do believe McCain would do far better than Bush has. Mccain for president? Yes, but it should have been in 2000.

    Being the world’s only superpower, America cannot afford to just look inwards, but must remain the beacon of light for the rest of the world. Sadly, the botched Iraq war, Guantanamo, the suspensions of many of the freedoms the US is so admired for, waterboarding, etc.. have tarnished the image of this great country. America will be a much safer place again if it can repair some of the damage that has been done by the previous administration. All I’m saying is that that is way more likely with Obama as president than with Mccain.

    Evidently international relations aren’t the only issue in this campaign. Other crucial issues to Americans I’ve touched upon above pertained to why a pinch of socialism would not be such a disaster as you seem to think it would be. When talking about the perceived dangers of an alleged socialist in power, should we not talk about the dangers of letting America ride out the wave of international antipathy for another 4 years?

  • linda

    Obama said the corporations need to be involved in their community. They once were and then the people wanted daddy government to overregulate them. He should know this, so it’s a bulls.. statement. And with all the government regulations and overtaxing it just gets worse and worse and give every politician something to talk about on the platform..like all the “change,” etc. More baloney. We do not need any more handout programs by taking from one group to give to those who do not pay taxes. Helping eachother is one thing, having the government do it is another. Another important thing to remember is the the new power congress has with the phoney ‘bailout’ scheme.

  • Sally in California

    Dear Fellow Americans —- We have driven off the road of what made America great — and it wasn’t socialism. That is not the foundation upon which the greatest country in the world was created.

    This election is really about WHAT KIND of Government we want and we really need to educate ourselves and our friends on what that means. This argument is as old as civilization. Socialism has its appeal to our hearts because we want ALL people to HAVE what they need in life – we don’t want anyone left out — we are a caring people.

    BUT someone has to PRODUCE so we can all HAVE. The problem with socialism is that it PENALIZES the productive citizen and eventually results in ALL of us HAVING LESS and having less FREEDOM as individuals as we then are under financial control of the government.

    CHANGE is needed – yes. But the CHANGE needed is CORRECTION of the unethical individuals who are covertly suppressing others. It is NOT changing the type of government we have.

    Please grant yourself the RIGHT of education on governments. There is a fantastic and easy way to do this. Go to onedollardvdproject.com and go to the LIST of DVDs and select AMERICANISM 101. It is a 30 minute education. It spells out, in common sense terms, the different types of governments and what they mean and have meant in history and why. You have the right and responsibility to know what your election decision will mean for you and your children.

  • dale

    HaHa, PeoplePower, seriously mate, wasn’t it obvious that was joke?

    Is it possible I’m not as funny as I think I am?

  • A 2001 video is now on youtube with Obama talking about spreading the wealth. This guy ia a socialist.

  • marzzbar

    Where does it say that Obama is a radical socialist?

  • Nahenahe

    All voters should watch:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocgpQTAKN4M

    Mahalo from Hawaii.

  • Dale

    Babs,

    I never used to read the comments much, but occasionally I’d read the comments, and I often viewed your comments with admiration.

    However, since I’ve started paying attention and contributing my respect for you has plummeted. NOT because of any partisanship, I assure you.

    “During the last few months Americans have been bullied (and you know it’s true, just follow youdecide) by international posters who have been less than gracious about our country and our freedom of choice.”

    “This election is about AMERICA, not North Koreans, Chinese, Saudia Arabians, or anyone else. America has supported these countries for years, and I think they’re just wanting more.”

    That may be true (but isn’t, anyway), if your country wasn’t starting wars condemned by the UN or crashing the world economy. It’s not about your freedom of choice, that’s BS used to ignore others’ perspectives rather than having to deal with your own inadequacies and/or mistakes.

    Like it or not, Bush cemented the fact that we all have a stake in your election, and we have every right to have our opinions. The ethnocentric Republican perspective has been devistaing for your country and the rest of the world and without understanding that, history will repeat, again and again. Already Iraq is an idiotic repeat of Vietnam, and will end in the same defeat and loss of life, global respect and most importantly for you, economic stability.

  • Kenna

    Great Article!! I will be sending it to everyone in my inbox.

    I just wish that the liberal left could point out the one line in the Constitution that says that it is the Government ie. the TAXPAYERS responsibilty to provide HEALTHCARE and all other sorts of vote buying “freebies” to the underachievers in society. That is the job of PRIVATE CHARITIES not TAXPAYER FUNDED GOVERNMENT HANDOUTS. I am not a wealthy person by any means, but I would like to think that if my husband and I continue to work hard that someday we will be. One day when we do achieve a higher income status I don’t want the fruits of MY LABOR to be stolen from me bythe fed. govt. and given to someone else who didn’t work for it.

    I am sick and tired of hearing the looney left talk about how great Europe is and how America should be more like Europe. ***NEWSFLASH***PEOPLE***….. Europe SUCKED so bad that we had to start our own country. You actually want us to adopt their healthcare system?? Well I certainly hope that Europes medical plan is better than their dental plan…have you seen some of those European grills?? They could rival anything seen in the Kentucky foothills.

    FL Democrat for McCain/Palin ’08

  • CGuy

    I have been a fiscal conservative my entire voting life. As such I have usually leaned toward the right. What has become shocking for me over the last year is the dominance of social conservatives in using fear and smear tactics to promote their own unclear agenda. While this tactic solidified the base it does disenfranchise those voters that believe in uniting this country and working together to solve the problems that lie ahead.

    How can I morally support a party that doesn’t appear to care about global respect, promotes fear rather than pride, creates war instead of promoting peace and still does not have a clear agenda about the economy. Rather than instilling fear and hate let’s focus on the issues to solve our problems and maybe the moderate and fiscal conservative Republicans will return to the Party. Right now there is no way I could vote for the Republican ticket.

  • Babs

    Dale, Iraq is nothing like VietNam, I’ve lived through both. You’ve read about them. My statement stands. The abuse we have taken from foreign individuals on this site alone is ridiculous. You’re welcome to your opinon from your corner of the world, and you’re welcome to express it here. You are not welcome to abuse me for mine. From some of the foreign contributors you see, and you have if you’ve been reading as long as you say, I have been called every name in the book, told I’ve had blood on my hands for the war, and advised to kill myself – all of this has come from foreign posters. As a matter of fact, weren’t you the one that just called us homosexuals? I have a right to angry about that.

    FedUp, I’m with you. This entire election has been shallow and sugar coated to death. I have said before and I will say again, on Nov. 5th this nation will be more divided than it has been in decades. “Mark MY words.”

  • Independent Woman

    Steve,
    You are correct in stating that the International perception of the US is quite weak. For Americans to completely ignore international opinion suggests an arrogance that will result in America losing her allies’ trust. Disregard for the Geneva convention by the Bush Administration has damaged relations with many allies.

    Having said all that, there is something that needs to be stated about John McCain, as you brought up the subject of torture.

    After the photographs of Abu Ghraib were published, John McCain was disgusted. Working with the organization- Human Rights First- he approached the Pentagon. He was quickly informed that the decision to use torture was the brain child of Dick Cheney.
    On 24 July 2005, John McCain introduced an amendment (to the Defence Department’s budget) prohibiting the engagement of torture by any US personnel. It applied to all prisoners held by the US whether they be held in the US or abroad. The intention was to ensure humane treatment of terrorist suspects and to cease the use of “black sites”.

    I am paraphrasing here, Steve. I advise you to read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer.

  • Babs

    Independent Woman, thanks for your post. Not only is it accurate, but it is further proof that McCain not only had opinions on such travesties in the Bush Administration, but he stood up and introduced an amendment to change it. This is but one of many examples of McCain’s tested integrity that fall by the wayside in the “rhetorical fourishes” of hope and change.

    McCain got little credit internationally for that act, and that’s a shame.

  • Super Sleuth

    CGuy,

    U better pull ur head of your arse and look at the stakes involved. You, along with most, will be feeding a large Welfare State once the 12 million illegal aliens are added to the healthcare and social security rolls and the already existing welfare rolls and those NOT paying taxes. Add the $65 billion per year Global Poverty Act tied to our GDP that will go to the UN and probably be misappropriated for weapons, etc. rather than food. Guess you love abortion and don’t believe in gun rights either. If you are approaching 55, your medical needs will take a backseat because healthcare will become a waiting game……..you are not as important as a 20-year-old illegal alien in the eyes of the “system.” Oh yea, he co-sponsored a bill to enable 5 million felons to vote but won’t co-sponsor the one to help overseas military votes count.

    Dems,P.U.M.A.S.,women and Republicans alike are pulling together for the best horse in the race who has: the experience, the track record, the foresight and the desire to lead and fight for our great country. He’s the one that has actually FOUGHT for this country and he has a proven track record – no brag, just fact. What you see is what you get – no smoke and mirrors.
    His name is John McCain. He’s a known quantity and has had no problem releasing ALL of his records – birth certificates, medical and school. Because he has something his opponent doesn’t: NOTHING TO HIDE.

  • Super Sleuth

    P.U.M.A.S., we love you!!! Hang tough with us. It ain’t over until it’s over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Fight!
    Everyone: Need donations for ads – !
    1. Pls sign new PETITION now and share with friends (goes to your Congressman and Senators) asking for official proof of citizenship/birth certifcates.
    http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244/stop-obama-constitutional-crisis/
    or also can be found at http://www.familysecuritymatters.org, scroll down to about the 4th page story to find the Petition – there is a Presidential Seal. (Sorry, don’t know how to post/embed an automatic link).
    2.Hello P.U.M.A.S! Obama is trying to steal the election and do the same to McCain that he did to Hillary.

    3. Pls donate even as little as $1 to the McCain-Palin campaign – go to website.

    4. Pls donate to GOPtrust.org to help with new hard-hitting ads NOW! Read Exec, Director’s letter. (Even Hillary knows how radical he is.)

    Our future Economic,Personal Freedoms, 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights hang in the balance!

  • Brit Brit

    Silly rabbits, we are all Brittney Spears now, Papi Bama controls all of our lives and pocketbooks!

  • CGuy

    Super Sleuth

    I have been a hunter all my life. However, assault weapons are not on my support list. Why are you assuming that I am something bad because I disagree with you?

    I do have issues with not allowing women freedom of choice. While I don’t support abortion, I do support women having their individual freedoms to make choices. Why are you creating fear? Issues are not either black or white. You’ll never retain the support of moderates if you only support right wing extremism and insult the moderates. You actually make things worse by spewing hate. Get with it and learn to work together!!

  • D Flowers

    It’s funny how so much background surrounding Barrack has just disappeared.

    Remember his church’s website had a link to the group “Black Panthers”, which quickly was taken off?

    I have relatives of different colors (close blood relatives)
    and from the beginning I have told people Barrack was a racist.
    Look at how long he belonged to that racist church. The Black Panthers and the KKK are one in the same in my book.

    I cannot believe that almost every black person will be voting for him (according to polls)

    I can’t believe the press is actually working for him.

    I cannot believe that so many people that insist they’re not racist would vote for him. I thought racism was a thing of the past but obviously people are not looking past the color of his skin.

  • Deb

    If Obama is all for “sharing the wealth” why does he have an aunt living in Boston, MA in public housing and Obama isn’t helping her out. And why is it that Biden has given an average of .06-.31% in the last ten years to charity. This amounts to as little as $2.00 a week for a couple who earns $200,000. Obama’s shows 5.8-6.1% and McCain’s shows 27.3-28.6% So Obama wants the rich to dig deep into their pockets but he hasn’t done too much for his own family.

    Here is an interesting article about raising taxes on the rich. I have believed all along that if taxes are raised for the rich they will take their money and go somewhere else. If that happens we will be in deep trouble.

    “Those who are receptive to Barack Obama’s plan to increase taxes on “the rich” seem not to understand that the issue is the nation’s loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it–instantly in an age of electronic financial transfers–and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead fo at home.
    The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be trnsferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.
    http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081102/OPINION03/811020312/1268/OPINION0312

  • Bill Hedges

    Deb- If elected, Obama can make up for the wrong he did to his aune and help his own family. His aunt could baby sit their kids in the White ZHouse.

  • Florent

    A little message from a french guy to tell you that it’s, after all, funny to watch in your country this fear for socialism (and I sware you that Obama is very far from a real socialism like France or any country with a socialist party…). Anyway, 85% of French (including me) hope that Obama will be the next president of United State because un little bit of socialism won’t hurt you, american people and may be a sunrise for all the countries and people whitch depends of america (Mexico, Europe, Africa, South America, etc…)

  • Bill Hedges

    Frence people may need government to rule their life. Americans like their fredom

  • Florent

    Bill hedges… if you really like your freedom, you don’t vote for McCain and you refuse a government who “rules” your life !! And socialism is pro freedom, unlike a governement like Bush or McCain that watches you and scares you with some ridiculous arguements like terrorist attacks or the fear of stangers (black men, mexican, oriental people…)

  • Bill Hedges

    Florent–I didn’t read any thing in your comment that is right about America. But feel free to express your comments

  • Michael

    Socialism will not work, that’s not what America was founded for. First re-distributing wealth, we tried that with the economic stimulus checks, failed! Second how do we know what the government will spend the extra money on, look what they do with the money they have, nothing and/or spend it on other countries! If 9/11 is a government cover up or inside job, it started when Clinton was in, how could Bush make so many mistakes so quickly. Obama isn’t even African American, nor is he Democrat after reading this, listen to his opinions.

    Just because some of you disagree with your friends or parents opinion don’t vote Democratic this year, and there are more than three parties. Besides giving money to the stupid doesn’t help the economy, yes I said stupid people, those who usually waste money. People that worked hard, are going to get taxed more, so they can’t pump it back into their business, now that guy can’t hire a high school drop out, but the drop out gets more money from the government. Nice incentive to be lazy.

    Lastly it’s easier for socialist supporters, to move to a socialist country. Oh I’m from UT, we don’t nuclear waste, let’s dump it in Mexico, get rid of illegal aliens, and move Business back to America, I hope someone reads my blurb.

  • PeoplePower

    Bill, and others *so* paranoid about Socialism –

    Socialism is an economic policy and has nothing to do with freedoms or the Bill of Rights. We can have both, not that I’m advocating for it, but they are not mutually exclusive.

    More to the point, if Obama were really socialist, the actual Socialist candidate for President (there really is one) wouldn’t speak poorly about him – at the very least, he’d keep quiet in the hopes that “one of his own” would get into office.

    Some things can be socialized without destroying America. And this whole “wealth re-distribution” is simply hyperbole used to scare the uninformed. It’s not wealth re-distribution to cut taxes more for the lower-income earners than for the higher-income earners. It’s progressive taxation. And the level to which it is done will still be well-less than the tax brackets prior to the 1980’s.

    And yet, we had *significant* and *real* boom years from the end of WWII until Reagan took office. Growth continued under Reagan, but mostly because he ratcheted up our debt in never-before-seen recklessness. The wealthy got wealthier and the middle class shrank.

    Now we’ve seen further disastrous pro-rich policies that have exponentially grown the super-rich well beyond the “simply” rich and they grew well beyond the middle class.

    This is great economic policy if you’re already rich, super-rich or were in the upper echelon of middle class. This is *awful* economic policy for everyone else.

    Under Democrats *everyone* does better, even the rich and super-rich. Why is it so difficult to understand this?

    Why? Because there are other reasons McCain supporters are scared to death of Democrats. The biggest reason is the vile, false and hyperbolic rhetoric of the Lee Atwaters, Karl Roves and Fox News’s of the world. They scream at the top of their lungs that *all* Liberals want to coddle criminals and steal all of your money so they can give it to Cadillac-driving welfare queens. Oh, and they want to hug a terrorist to make them stop hurting us…

    These are lies and smears that do nothing but divide the country. They are excessive exaggerations of the left-of-center policies of the Democrats.

    Do you want *real* change and hope for this country?? Try working together *with* your opposition to come up with real solutions that both sides can live with.

    The radical Pro-Lifers often call Pro-Choicers “Pro-Abortionists” (McCain did it, and it disgusted me).

    NOBODY is PRO abortion! But all but the most staunch Pro-Lifers are okay with a woman’s right to choose and base her decisions on all of the information her doctor can provide, along with her guiding morals and faith.

    Want to stop abortions? Do your utmost to help assure people hope for tomorrow. If the unwed mother-to-be sees hope for her tomorrow, she will (by her own biology and *predominant* beliefs) want to keep the child.

    We *can* work together to find common ground solutions. Our biggest obstacles: lobbyists and talking heads who radicalize us into believing every slice of negativity towards our “opposition”, while simultaneously questioning anything bad about “our side”.

    We’re all ONE side. We ARE the United States of America and if we follow our guiding principles and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers, Constitution and Declaration of Independence; we can do unbelievably amazing things…but we MUST do it together!

  • Bill Hedges

    “Some things can be socialized without destroying America. And this whole “wealth re-distribution” is simply hyperbole used to scare the uninformed. It’s not wealth re-distribution to cut taxes more for the lower-income earners than for the higher-income earners. It’s progressive taxation. And the level to which it is done will still be well-less than the tax brackets prior to the 1980’s”……..Spread the waelth is what Obama said. Raising taxes on the wealthly and giving it to loswer income group. This is not the same as lowering tax rate of lower income group. Few would argue with that. Right now many do not pay taxes. When taxes are collected they are to be used for government function, not to be given to lower economic group of people. There are programs avaiable for individuals of lower income. If qualified. Small business Administration is just one example.

  • Tom

    Obama is big a socialist and has a torted world view. GOD HELP US ALL!

  • Not only is Obama a socialist, he is also from Kenya. You can view the video where he says that at my blog.