BREITBART: NEW PARTY LITERATURE SUGGESTS OBAMA WAS A CARD CARRYING MEMBER…….

Paying his dues, but not for a capitalist society.

‘NEW PARTY’ LITERATURE SUGGESTS OBAMA PAID DUES TO JOIN

by JOHN SEXTON 5 hours ago 159 POST A COMMENT
In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama’s involvement with Chicago’s extremist “New Party,” online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership.

This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.

First, there’s a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama’s involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a “crackpot smear.” Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn’t have members.

On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement. However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never had members, telling Ben Smith, “‘I have no idea what the Chicago people were saying about him being a member,’ he said. ‘We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.'”

The problem with this is that the New Party website–earlier drafts of which still exist in the internet archive–mention membership repeatedly and, as we’ll see, even define what membership meant. Here’s the 1999 version of the New Party website, specifically the “Join the New Party” page. Let me pull a few quotes that seem pertinent:

Transforming the face of American politics is a long, hard task. Your membership dollars can help us make each step of this process a reality
[T]he New Party’s work depends on our members.
Most New Party members join as a monthly sustainer.
Sustainer pledges are automatically deducted from members’ credit cards
All New Party members receive a free subscription to our quarterly newsletter
If you have any questions about the New Party that weren’t answered on our site, or if you want to know if your membership is current, please contact our membership coordinator

More here at Breitbart.com

Written by KGS

2 Responses

By James Boom Jun 11, 2012

Imagine Obama sending urban blacks to take over white farms. Forwards!
https://www.departmentoffreespeech.com/dfs_006.htm
1. By KGS Jun 11, 2012
  
  Obama and his class warfare cadre of leftist loons will be defeated in the upcoming elections, the economy is so bad that even his base is deserting him. As for the racial aspects to your comment, all I can say is that it’s all about socialism, not race. Defeat that destructive ideology, and your one giant step closer to people nor longer being divided by class warfare and racial lines. The only reason minorities such as African Americans are over represented in the crome statistics in the US, is due to failed big government entitlement programs, they have decimated the Black community in the bigger urban centers, as entitlement aid does to just about every group around the world. Just look at the Palestinians, the trillion in aid over the past two decades haven’t done them any good, except create a demand for more dependency and instill a culture of corruption (more than usual for that neck of the woods). OBTW, that’s my quote you have at the bottom of your post.

Leave a Reply to James Boom Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

There’s No Common Cultural Legacy For The Alt-Right

Still, is there something to it? Is there a common heritage that will cover El Greco and Hume and Dostoyevsky? Is there one that can include the Jacobites and the Jacobins? There is, but it is not racial, and white supremacists reject it because it rejects them. The unifying heritage of Europe is religious and philosophical. It is Jerusalem and Athens, in one famous formulation. Christian religion and Greek philosophy, filtered through Roman law and culture, are the foundation of European culture. The tensions, agreements, developments and settlements between these have shaped the Western world, and these roots of Western civilization are not congenial to white supremacy.

Christianity is universal in its message and Jewish in its origins. For centuries after its founding, Christianity’s center was the Mediterranean world, including Asia Minor and North Africa. Christianity has never been defined by race, and locally-grown racist heresies are only sustainable among those ignorant of Christianity’s teachings, origins and history.

Greek philosophy is likewise ill-suited to serve as a basis for white identity. It is either too universal (addressing the human condition in general) or too local—none of us live as citizens of an ancient Greek polis. Later philosophical developments in Europe, such as the philosophies of the Enlightenment, likewise tend to be too universal for white supremacists seeking a tribal identity. As for the scientific revolution that developed within Western culture (albeit with much borrowed from outside Europe), math doesn’t care what color someone is.

"More here"

War is being waged against Western culture from within which is in essence a war against Christianity and its moral origins in the Hebrew Bible. By attacking these Biblical foundations in the name of reason and human rights, the culture warriors of secularism are sawing off the branch on which they sit. The only way to defend Western civilisation is to reaffirm and restore its Biblical foundations. My argument is a development of ideas I first explored in my 2012 book The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power.

We are living in an era which extols reason, science and human rights. These are said to be essential for progress, a civilised society and the betterment of humanity. Religion is said to be their antithesis, the source instead of superstitious mumbo-jumbo, oppression and backward-thinking.

Some of this hostility is being driven by the perceived threat from Islamic terrorism and the Islamisation of Western culture. However, this animus against religion has far deeper roots and can be traced back to what is considered the birthplace of Western reason, the 18th-century Enlightenment.

Actually, it goes back specifically to the French Enlightenment. In England and Scotland, the Enlightenment developed reason and political liberty within the framework of Biblical belief. In France, by contrast, anti-clericalism morphed into fundamental hostility to Christianity and to religion itself.

“Ecrasez l’infame,” said Voltaire (crush infamy) — the infamy to which he referred being not just the Church but Christianity, which he wanted to replace with the religion of reason, virtue and liberty, “drawn from the bosom of nature”.

Perfecting society

But this Enlightenment did not remove religion so much as pervert it. It took millenarian fantasies, the idea that the perfection of the world was at hand, and it secularised them. Instead of God producing heaven on earth, it would be mankind which would bring that about. Reason would create the perfect society and “progress” was the process by which utopia would be attained.

More here"

“I think that we should correct the vocabulary that we use, and call a spade a spade. It is all about Jihad, the Islamic effort to spread Islam globally”:

Terrorist attack – should be called Military Jihad.

Incitement – Media Jihad.

Al-Jazeera – Media Jihad Channel.

Imposing Sharia law – Judicial Jihad or Legislative Jihad.

Boycotting Israel (BDS) – Economic Jihad.

Emigration to EU and US – Emigration Jihad / Hijra Jihad.

Building mosques, Islamic education institutions – Cultural Jihad.

Halal food – Dietary Jihad.

Hijab or Niqab – Clothing Jihad.

Activity of MSA – Academic Jihad.

Activity of CAIR – Political Jihad / Public Jihad.

Collecting money for Islamic “charities” – Financial Jihad.

Political correctness – Submission to Jihad.

J Street, Peace Now, JVP and their likes – Jewish Useful Idiots who Serve Jihad.

Iran deal – Western Support for Nuclear Jihad.

‘NEW PARTY’ LITERATURE SUGGESTS OBAMA PAID DUES TO JOIN

Share this:

Written by KGS

2 Responses

Leave a Reply to James Boom Cancel reply