If It Looks Like A Duck and Quacks Like A Duck Then Dammit It's A Duck!!!

I am re-posting an article I happened upon this afternoon for all of those who believe that Socialist Duck-In-Chief isn't a Socialist Duck!:

Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party?

By P.J. Gladnick (Bio | Archive)
October 8, 2008 - 16:15 ET

The mainstream media thought that the membership of Todd Palin, who is not a candidate for any office, in the Alaska Independence Party important enough to report in such outlets as the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, and the New York Times, among others.

So now that Barack Obama's membership in the far left New Party has been unearthed, will they report his membership in that Socialist organization?

Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog:

In June sources released information that during his campaign for the State Senate in Illinois, Barack Obama was endorsed by an organization known as the Chicago "New Party". The 'New Party' was a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. The admittedly Socialist Organization experienced a moderate rise in numbers between 1995 and 1999. By 1999, however, the Socialist 'New Party' was essentially defunct after losing a supreme court challenge that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

After allegations surfaced in early summer over the 'New Party's' endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and 'New Party' then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, I discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website. The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races. Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

From the October 1996 Update of the DSA 'New Party':
"New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races...

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

You can find the above quote from the scubbed New Party web page at this Internet Archive Organization link. More confirmation of Obama's membership in the New Party can be found at an article in the November 1996 Progressive Populist magazine:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

The Democratic Socialist Party of America also reported on Obama's New Party membership in its July/August 1996 edition:

The Chicago New Party is increasely becoming a viable political organization that can make a different in Chicago politics. It is crucial for a political organization to have a solid infrastructure and visible results in its political program. The New Party has continued to solidify this base.

First, in relation to its infrastructure, the NP's membership has increased since January '95 from 225 to 440. National membership has increased from 5700 in December '95 to 7000. Currently the NP's fiscal balance is $7,000 and receives an average of $450/month is sustainer donations.

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. The lone loser was Willie Delgado, in the 3rd Illinois House District. Although Delgado received 45% of the vote, he lost by only 800 votes. Delgado commented that it was due to the NP volunteers that he carried the 32nd Ward. Delgado emphasized that he will remain a visible community activist in Humbolt Park. He will conduct four Immigration workshops and encouraged NP activists to get involved.

Kudos to Politically Drunk On Power for digging up this information about Obama's membership in the socialist New Party. The question now is if the MSM will deem his party membership important enough to report on. They sure didn't hesitate to report on Todd Palin's membership in the Alaska Independence Party.

UPDATE: Yet more proof of Obama's close involvement in the socialist New Party from NewsBusters' Hermano who provided this link to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of American September-October 1995 New Ground 42 edition:

About 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.

So Obama signed a contract with the New Party? Verrrry interesting.

—P.J. Gladnick is a freelance writer and creator of the DUmmie FUnnies blog. (source)


I don't know why I bothered......most of the "government educated/indoctrinated" Obama supporters don't have a problem with Socialism. Hell, some of them even theorize that Socialism is biblical!

Questions The Lapdog Media Should Ask President Obama But Don't Because They Are Too Busy Humping His Leg

The left blogosphere refers to Fox News as Faux News, and the Un-news channel. Here are some of the articles written about Fox and Fox viewers:

Uninformed Glen[n] Beck and Fox News viewers not courageous or smart enough to hold them accountable.

Beck Wants Americans To Stay Uniformed, Unengaged, Fat and Lazy

Considering how critical, cynical and self-aggrandized these people are, it defies all reason that after watching President Obama's media blitz on Sunday none of these highly informed individuals would give pause and ask -- Why did they all ask him the same questions? Why was he only slightly challenged in one interview? Did they learn anything that they didn't already know about healthcare reform. President Obama didn't bother to grant Fox an interview-- actually he said last Thursday that “I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill this plan than improve it”. But aside for the pettiness, his decision to snub "Fox News Sunday", wasn't very wise considering that a Sept. 16th comparision of cable news viewership yielded this result:

FOX News – 1,548,000 viewers

CNN – 563,000 viewers

MSNBC –421,000 viewers

CNBC – 212,000 viewers

HLN – 336,000 viewers

(Source)

If President Obama's goal is to get the truth out about his healthcare reform plan, then why not contend for and defend the plan that you believe is best for all Americans. Perhaps he knows it's not best for all Americans and just the Americans he cares about, or perhaps he doesn't care who it's best for as long as he brings forth his agenda--dare I say hidden agenda.

On Glenn Beck's show yesterday, he asked the questions that the Lapdog media should have asked but didn't and then showed previous clips of President Obama telling us how he really feels in his own words.

President Obama are you a proponent of single payer universal healthcare plan? If so, are you slow walking it by using the public option? In other words Mr. President are merely laying the foundation for single payer universal healthcare in the future? Is the ultimate goal to do away with private insurance altogether?

Mr. President are you more concerned about the will of the American people, 46% of whom are happy with their insurance or is it more important to you to do the biddings of George Soros and the groups he funds like the Tide Alliance, ACORN,and SEIU? Mr. President what is the probability of the Democrats using the "Nuclear Option" to get this bill passed in the House? Do you support that? Mr. President why do you associate yourself with people who hold such radical points of view?

Mr. President you have been quite critical of former President Bush and not without reason, yet you have maintained and in some instances expanded the very policies you criticized -- Why? You have appointed radical, marxist, revolutionary and even criminal individuals to key positions in your administration -- Why? Do you know what these people have said and done in the past? Are you selecting these individuals because you are of one mind with them? What did you mean your first day in office when you said "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America"? Did you mean Mr. President it is your intention to put in place the coalitions of power to bring about redistributive change?

Mr. President you have said in your own words that you have worked closely with ACORN and that they would play a key role in "shaping the agenda" for the United State of America, so are you being truthful when you say that you haven't been watching them very closely? To be blunt Mr. President, why are you playing dumb?

Mr. President, are you at all concerned about lower and middle class Americans who will be adversely affecting by rising energy costs as a result of Cap & Trade? You said yourself that electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket", do you think utility companies will absorb that cost or pass it along to consumers?
Mr. President,is your idea of comprehensive immigration reform granting Amnesty to to 20 million illegal immigrants here currently? If so, then is that how you come to the conclusion that illegal aliens will not be covered in the healthcare reform bill?


So those are the questions that should be put to President Obama but unfortunately the Lapdog Media will not ask. Why? Those of you accusing Fox News and it's host of racism, are these not reasonable concerns especially in light of President Obama's very own words and deeds? Those of you who feel that Fox viewers are uniformed, do you know the answers to these questions? If so, then will you please address them instead of accusing reasonable people of racism, and self-hatred if said reasonable person asking happens to be black. Lastly because I'm really curious do you really give slightly a shade left of a damn who President Obama thinks will win the World Series?

Never In American History Has A President Had As Many Death Threats

Those are the words of one of my bff's....I suspected that she was just repeating something she'd heard on Urban radio in the morning because that's the kind of incidendiary misinformation disseminated these days. Then I ran across the most interesting article this evening by John Perazzo at Newsrealblog.com:


"Ever since the Tea Party phenomenon exploded onto the political scene a few months back, the Left has been up in arms over the inflammatory and offensive rhetoric featured on some of the signs and placards displayed by those in attendance. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow, among others, have fumed repeatedly about the bad taste exhibited by many of those expressing their displeasure with the President and his policies.

The Huffington Post ran a feature on this subject, titled “10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs,” which singled out, among others, the following winners — or perhaps “losers” is a more apt term:

“Obama’s Plan: White Slavery”
“The American taxpayers are the Jews for Obama’s ovens”
“Our tax $ given to Hamas to Kill Christians, Jews, & Americans”
“Obama: What you talking about Willis? Spend my money?”
“Obama loves taxes, bankrupt USA, loves baby killing”
“Barack Hussein Obama: The new face of Hitler”
“Barack Obama supports abortion, sodomy, socialism, and the New World Order”
“Obama was not bowing [to the Saudi king]. He was sucking Saudi jewels.”
That’s pretty salty stuff. Reasonable people must concede that rhetoric like this is crude and offensive.

A question does come to mind, however: Exactly how did the Huffington Post go about selecting these particular signs for recognition? A simple Internet search turns up a whole host of protesters’ signs that were considerably more offensive, and more graphic, than these. Many of them, in fact, issued explicit calls for violence against the President. Among the uglier, more reprehensible examples were the following:

1.One sign exhorted Americans to “kill” the President and “bomb his f—in White House.”
2.Another said, “I’m here to kill” the President.
3.Another said to “hang” the President.
4.Another said the President “is the disease, death is the cure.”
5.Another said the President is “the only dope worth shooting.”
6.Another showed a likeness of the President’s face with a bullet hole in the forehead, oozing red blood.
7.Another called explicitly for the “death” of the “pig” in the White House.
8.Another displayed a caricature of the President’s disembodied, bleeding head.
9.Others featured the President’s face accompanied by such captions as: “Wanted: dead or alive,” and “Death to the dictator.”
10.Another showed the President’s neck being fitted with a noose.
11.Still another showed the image of a noose accompanied by a caption urging us to “support” the President (i.e., with the noose).
Perhaps examples 10 and 11 above, evoking images of lynchings, lend some credence to the claims of Jimmy Carter, who has told conservatives that, however much they may wish to deny it, their criticisms of President Obama are, in the final analysis, motivated chiefly by a subconscious racism that simply cannot accept a black man as President.

Oh, but wait. Actually, none of the signs in the numbered list above were displayed at Tea Party rallies protesting President Obama and his policies. They were displayed during the previous administration, at rallies protesting President George W. Bush and his policies.

Oops. Never mind."(Source)


Check out these pictures courtesy of Zombietime.com:
















I wonder why all of these death threats against Bush were not reported? Double standard perhaps? Kathie Shaidle at zombietime.com says the following: "I contend that the media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush. Why? I believe it is part of an ideological bias: most mainstream networks and newspapers tried their best during the Bush administration to portray the anti-war movement as mainstream and moderate; whereas now they are trying to portray the anti-tax and anti-health-care-bill protesters as extremists and as fringe kooks. To achieve these goals, they essentially suppressed any mentions of the violent signage (including threats to Bush) at anti-war rallies, but have highlighted anything that could even conceivably be construed as a threat at anti-Obama events."

I supposed I wouldn't care so much about the drones who haven't a clue, who are routinely deceived the Obama's lapdogs media except that almost everyone I care about is damn Obama drone.