Che Obama

How fringe Left is Barack Hussein Obama? Check out this email alert from Redstate.com.

JRH 6/4/08

************************

Barack Obama's disturbing leftist ties

By Erick Erickson, Editor

Email Sent June 3, 2008

Last week at RedState we uncovered the news that Barack Obama was endorsed by something called the New Party.  Since then we have investigated what the New Party was.

It is abundantly clear that the New Party was a political party designed to push the Democratic Party to the far left.  It's membership was an amalgamation of socialists, unrepentant communists, union activists, urban activists, and environmentalists.

You can read all about the New Party and Obama's rise to power here.

Its platform included such lovely ideas as government takeovers of all banking institutions, much higher taxes, and massive reductions in the military.  To win the nomination of the New Party, a candidate would have to agree to sign a statement expressing loyalty to the party.

By the time Barack Obama sought the party's nomination for his first election in 1996, the New Party had well established itself as the major third party alternative for leftists who thought the Democratic Party had drifted too far to the right.

There is absolutely no doubt that Barack Obama knew what the New Party was.  Barack Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of this far left group and, with it, was able to win his election.  He was willing to express his loyalty to this far left party.  The radical left Democratic Socialists of America praised the New Party's endorsement of Obama and itself promoted Obama.

None of us should buy into the notion that the man is somehow different because of his silver tongue.  He is a political opportunist, a die-hard leftist, or both.  It is clear, based on what the New Party was and Obama's connection to it, that he is the candidate of a repudiated past that we should not want to resurrect.

Please forward this email to your friends to show them who Barack Obama really is.

Erick Erickson
Editor, RedState.com

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

FARC Cartel BK-Cover

Remember the incident in South America in which Columbian forces entered Venezuelan territory fought with a FARC drug lord and killed him? As part of the spoils of this minor victory over the global drug market eight laptops were seized and taken back to Columbia in their hasty exit from Venezuela.

Of course Marxist Hugo Chavez went postal and began some saber rattling against Columbia and old Hugo got his buddy Marxist Rafael Correa to also move troops to the Columbia/Ecuador border all in an effort of typical communist intimidation.

Now let’s talk about those eight laptops. Columbia had Interpol forensic experts examine them. Now Interpol is a police force NOT known for corruption. Interpol discovered potential evidence on the laptops linking FARC with Hugo Chavez’s Venezuelan Government. It should be of no surprise because FARC’s original purpose for existing is as a Communist movement (of the old Marxist/Leninist brand) to overthrow the Columbian government. It just happens that ideology is overshadowed by thuggery and international drug dealing (with a little kidnapping thrown in for good measure) as an illegal capitalist enterprise. How is that for the effectiveness of Marxist ideology?

Anyway if the loose ends can be attached to Uncle Hugo with Interpol’s forensic discoveries, then America has an outstanding case to force the rusty wheels of the U.N. Security Council to throw a monkey wrench in the agenda of Hugo Chavez.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Dem Dream Team

What does change mean to Barack Hussein Obama? It means accelerating Slanted Left social engineering internally and sticking their head in the sand externally. Think of how much worse it could be if Hillary succeeds in talking her despised fellow Democrat into the “dream ticket” run for the White House in 2008.

The extreme Black Power Leftist politically married to only a slightly less minuscular Lefty in Hillary would perpetuate and increase the social engineering in America in such things as a Christian Minister preaching from the Bible that homosexuality is sin would be a bigoted hate crime.

GW has sought out Arab consensus against Iran as a last choice to confront a nuking Iran because the Leftists or anti-American governments do not have the cajones to face oil rich and radical Islamic terrorist Iran. Obama’s world view would make negotiating with rogues, murdering terrorists and exporters of Islamist hatred his primary choice rather than the last choice. Obama would be in agreement of appeasement with Leftists in Europe and America. Gosh! Does it sound like Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Accords making a deal with a devil that had no intention whatsoever to keep the Accords? Kind of sounds like Ahmadinejad and Iran diplomacy stalling for more and more time to reach some kind of appalling goal – WMD. Indeed deception or the impossible “all or nothing” attitude seems to the primary negotiation tool of most of the Islamic Middle East. Does Obama believe he can make a deal with Islamist liars?

David Limbaugh has written a column that the McCain is boning up on the character and the friendships of Barack Hussein Obama to allow the real Obama to be seen by the American public before they make a choice for President in November 2008. Limbaugh has some excellent insight on the real Obama – YOU should read it.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Che Obama

Barack Hussein Obama’s Campaign slogan is “Change.”

He has enamored the youth of America with a slogan that sounds good but it is a slogan with little substance of the “Change” called for. The “Change” alludes to a regime change in America without divulging the specifics of “Change.”

Perhaps Obama’s associations can give America a clue to what “Change” is.

JRH 5/6/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Chavez, Castro & Morales

Evo Morales – the President of Bolivia – is described as the mini-me of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Morales is utilizing the Chavez playbook to convert Bolivia into a Communist regime as Chavez has done in Venezuela.

There is on big difference though. Morales’ efforts though roughshod are not going smoothly in duping the Bolivian opposition as Chavez has done in Venezuela.

Ergo Morales faces a potential of removal at the hands of an increasingly angrier Bolivian people and political opposition. There are implications that Morales might survive the opposition if he is a bit more deceptive. Hopefully Bolivian are smarter than Venezuelans and put a stop to Morales before his power base becomes autocratically dictatorial.

JRH 4/10/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Disintegration of the Persistence of Memory, 1952-54, Dali

I consider myself more of a neoconservative than a mere conservative, even though neocons have a target pasted to their brains these days. The fact of the matter is I was a Slanted Left kind-of-guy in my youth with a huge belief in the Collective solving the ills of global poverty and human rights.

My slow transference toward the Right was the result of a few things, viz. that the Collective tended to be authoritarian and despotic rather than possessing Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity. I don’t know, I may have a bit of the Collective in my blood, however definitely not the vision of Marx, Lenin and Mao.

If there is ever a valid Collective it will under the auspices of the Liberty, Freedom and Morality that finds a foundation in Christianity.

Saying that, here is a wonderful essay about neocons from James Lewis:

JRH

*********************************

Why Isn't the Whole Left Neoconservative?

By James Lewis
December 21, 2006
American Thinker

Now that neocons are being slow-roasted in effigy all over the world, this may be the right time to ask the question: Why isn't the whole Left neoconservative? Remember that neocons like Norman Podhoretz and Daniel P. Moynihan were former left-wingers who saw the light --- which only seems like common sense, after witnessing Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims (Dad and Junior), and the whole mass-murdering gang of cutthroats.

After the Soviet Union crashed and no one could possibly ignore the bloody mess the Left kept making over seventy long years. So why didn't all the decent Leftists just read their Milton Friedman and grow up?

That's what the so-called neocons did, and more power to them. I take it as obvious that they were correct and morally decent, in learning to see how wrong they had been. They grew up. My question is: What happened to all the others?

Or to ask it a different way: Why is it that in Britain, of all countries, a BBC4 survey showed that the greatest philosopher of all time is considered to be ... Karl Marx? A hate-filled parasitical scribbler who spent his life in the British Museum, stoking the fires that killed 100 million people in the 20th century? What is wrong with British education that the plain facts do not shout out for themselves?

The fact that the Left never, ever learns gives the lie to all its high-falutin' claims of "idealism," "progressivism," and superior morality. There is one and only one reason the Left isn't blamed for its misdeeds: It still controls the organs of propaganda, following der Übermenschlicher Karl. Thus some 90 percent of our media functionairies are left wingers. A predominant percentage of professors and teachers are, too.

To hold on to their beliefs leftists must shut down any competing ideas, which is precisely what they do. Just take your favorite leftist friends, and tell them some obvious fact they don't want to hear. You can see it working right in front of your eyes: They just won't hear it. Like the stone idols of the Bible, they have eyes, but cannot see; ears, but cannot hear. (Ps. 115) As long as they control the dominant media, our society will keep teetering at the brink of destruction.

All this is relevant today, because the Western world has just realized (again!) that multiculturalism, the latest mass delusion from the elites, comes down to societal suicide. Ooops! In exchange for the Multiculti Cult we get the Twin Towers on 9/11, carnage in London, Madrid, Mumbai, Bali and Baghdad, nightly riots in the banlieus of France, hateful anti-Americanism throughout Europe and America, and yes, the rise of yet another version of Left Fascism, this time marked by loudly voiced race hatred and anti-Semitism. Who could be surprised? Yet nobody blames the snake-oil peddlers for those deadly toxins.

Europe is still suffering from the intellectual monopoly of socialism. "Sophisticated" Europe doesn't see any respectable alternative to the Left, since conservatism is constantly and deliberately confounded with fascism. The American Left tries to ape the Euromyth that any decent and moral person must be a Leftist --- but so far only American professors believe it. Since in the tunnel-vision of the anointed there is no alternative to themselves, if one fairy-tale of Earthly Paradise is seen to crash, another one must instantly take its place. That is why the commissars of Post-Modernism and Multiculturalism suddenly rose to power all over the West in the 1970s and 80s. The faithful had to find a new way to justify their idee fixe.

Such mental fixedness is utterly irrational. A psychiatrist would have to ask whether the people who keep peddling the same toxins over and over again are themselves deeply malevolent and destructive: Whether unconsciously they really want to murder their societies. Why else would they keep pushing toward chaos?

So I ask again: Why isn't everybody on the Left a neocon? Why isn't Hillary? Chomsky? John Kerry? All those Sixties leftovers who never learned --- why are they so intellectually stuck? Have they no decency?

So hurray for the Neocons, say I, and long may they bug the Left.
James Lewis blogs at Dangerous Times.

© American Thinker 2006

Hat tip to Dissecting the Left.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend