by: Stanley Kurtz:
On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
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.
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.
Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.
The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.
The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”
This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.
In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.
In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.
At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships.
The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.
Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.
The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.
To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.
I have more to say on the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.
In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.
These are the breathtaking underwater pictures captured by marine life photographer David Doubilet on the wildest parts of the planet.
The vibrant photographs range from cute Australian sea lions peering inquisitively into the lens to a terrifying Great White Shark opening its jaws in South Africa.
Attribution: Mail Online
After retiring to bed, the wife said, “Darling, do you remember how you stroked my hair? and so he stroked her hair.”
She reminded him of the way they had cuddled, and so they did.
Then, with a sigh, she whispered, “Won’t you nibble my ear again?”
With that, the husband got out of bed and left the room.
“Where are you going?”, cried the wife.
“To get my teeth”, he said.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Step one in the great election theft of 2012. Through an illegal dictatorial decree (executive order), the Obama Administration will grant amnesty for young illegal immigrants. They won’t call it that but who cares.
This of course is beyond the scope of the president’s constitutional authority. That is of no concern to him or the revolutionaries that surround and advise him. The plan is to immediately stop any deportation efforts and issue work permits to these young lawbreakers. They will attach some pretend conditions on the illegals to make it sound more reasonable. (eg: must have graduated high school.) In order to comply with the federal program, the illegals will, no doubt, have to register with Homeland Security.
During a press conference in 2011, the president clearly explained to the press & public, he did not have the authority to just change or disregard the laws regarding illegal immigrants.
They have evidently found a way to just usurp congress & decree it, just as you would expect a dictator to do. Actually, they haven’t found a way around our pesky laws. The administration just doesn’t care. They do these sorts of things all the time, just daring the congress to stop them. Also, in 2011 they didn’t think they would need this block of non-citizens.
Obama explained his reasoning this way: He sent a proposal to congress and they blocked it. He just can’t wait for their approval, so in true constitutional form, he has decided to make it so without congressional approval. He did assure the American people, this would not be a path to citizenship. Although I don’t believe him, I do believe they don’t care whether these poor folks are citizens or not. That is not what they’re after.
I do agree, however, that he can’t wait. It will, after all, take time for all the illegals to sign up for the program.
The Obamites must leave themselves enough time to implement Step two.
Step Two will be a massive voter registration drive. By shear coincidence, these young illegals just happen to be between the ages of 18 & 30. Just old enough to vote & young enough to still be stupid.
As you recall, all of the young illegals had to sign up for work permits. To do so required them to release to the government, their personal contact information including an address and telephone number.
In a way that doesn’t seem possible, these lists will somehow end up in the hands of the “Center for American Progress”, “MoveOn.Org” and/or some “ACORN” type organization.
These organizations will then fan out across the nation to register the unsuspecting voting block. Strong-arm tactics will NOT be used for the registration drive. Threats of deportation will NOT occur, for those who balk at registering to vote, because the new worker knows it is illegal to do so, . There will be NO incentive proposed for registration, such as free sign up for Obamacare.
As I stated, in 2011, Obama said that he simply didn’t have the authority to do this, he was not a Monarch. So what has changed? Certainly not the whole “Monarch” thing. He has always thought that. What has changed is the need for additional votes.
The administration knows it is in real electoral trouble. This leads me to reveal Step Three.
My theory is that they will cheat as much as they have to, to win the popular vote in November. As you may know, whoever wins the electoral vote, wins the election. If Romney wins the electoral vote but Obama can pull out a popular vote victory, his administration and wacko supporters will file so many lawsuits it would cause the country to shut down, not to mention, tearing it apart by fomenting race riots. There have been many factions in the past wanting to just do away with the whole electoral process & replace it with the popular vote only. Hillary Clinton suggested it several years ago.
I guess we’ll just have to see how much congress let’s Obama get away with. I hate to say it, but most of them don’t have the spine to do the right thing and stand up to this bunch.
But, with enough independent light shone on the administration, it may at least, slow them down and possibly wake up a few more legal voters.
EPA wants a “Way of Life Act” to control us even more
by: Julie Szydlowski
Despite the extensive regulations placed on Americans through the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other directives, zealots at the Environmental Protection Agency say existing rules are not enough to control individual behavior – and controlling individual behavior is what they long to do.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) recently released a video montage of Obama EPA Regional Administrators revealing their hopes of imposing a green “Way Of Life Act” on Americans enforced through the regulatory dictatorship of the EPA.
President Obama-appointed EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz is heard saying on the video that the EPA should “crucify” and “make an example” of the oil and coal industries — which is eerily in keeping with Obama’s promise to bankrupt coal companies.
To be precise, Armendariz put his “philosophy of enforcement” of a green way of life regarding oil & coal companies this way: “It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
Armendariz went on to say, “I don’t have a Way of Life Act that I can enforce – I’ve got a Clean Air Act, I’ve got a Clean Water Act, a Safe Drinking Water Act that can be used to enforce green ideals.” But having an official Act on how people actually live their lives would be so much more convenient.
Armendariz subsequently resigned under fire for his comments, but he wasn’t alone in his intent to control our way of life. Also appearing on the video is EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck, who tries to justify a “Way of Life Act” because, “I don’t think individual change is going to be enough.”
But it’s not just these two people we need to fear, Sen. Inhofe’s office warns. “The purpose of this video is to get to know President Obama’s ‘green generals’ – the regional administrators – who are going into battle for the Obama-EPA, working hard to force a green ‘way of life act’ in regions across the United States.”
It’s frightening to imagine what type of controls they envision placing on us under such an Act. It’s bad enough that environmentalists are indoctrinating children into a green way of thinking; to the extent of having them monitor their own parents to point out where they’re failing to live “green.” Now agents of the government want to regulate our behavior officially and have another excuse to raise taxes on our use of energy.
The question is, what makes these environmentalists’ values more important than an individual’s right to live as he chooses? At what point will the government, under the guise and legal backing of a green Way of Life Act or other existing Acts, begin to dictate how much water we can use in a given day, or how long we can run our air conditioner? Especially bothersome is that unelected officials are being given extraordinary power to enforce behavior on American citizens, and they have the full support of our President.
Just like New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s attempt to regulate the size of soda cups we drink from, our government has no right telling us how to live our lives in our own private pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Too bad those values are all but forgotten by this leftist government gone wild. Hopefully this Way of Life Act remains nothing more than a pipe-dream.
by: Tim Brown & the Common Constitutionalist
It never ceases to amaze me how government can come up with new ways to milk people of their money, but find it impossible to cut their spending.
The new technology is already being explored by Minnesota and Oregon. The GPS-like box would be mounted inside a person’s vehicle and they can purchase “miles” ahead of time.
“As the (national vehicle) fleet becomes more fuel efficient … we’re going to lose a lot of revenue from the gas tax. If it’s not replaced, we’re going to see our transportation infrastructure deteriorate,” says Joshua Schank, president of the Eno Center for Transportation in Washington, D.C.
He expects to see a state vehicle miles-traveled (VMT) tax within the next 5 to 10 years.
“We’re seeing a lot of interest in VMT as one of the potential solutions to transportation funding gaps that states are dealing with,” says Jaime Rall, senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Many say the greatest obstacle to a miles-traveled tax has been privacy concerns. When Oregon ran a pilot program six years ago, motorists’ major objection was to in-vehicle boxes used to track miles driven, said James Whitty of the Oregon Department of Transportation. “They didn’t like the government boxes. They didn’t like the GPS mandate,” he says.
Of those 2 words, GPS and mandate, my guess is they objected more to ‘mandate’.
So let’s see if I have this right. In most states, we purchase a vehicle and pay a tax to either the city or town & the state. Then we must register it; another tax. Then we buy gas for it and pay tax on the gas. We then pay a toll to drive on the road; that’s a tax. Now they’re going to tax us on the miles we drive due to diminished revenue because they have forced us into more economical cars with escalated fuel costs and bogus CAFE standards?
Next, some state or federal bureaucrat will propose a new tax (actually more of a penalty) for non-mass transit users. An additional fee when you register your vehicle. By purchasing a car, it is assumed you will not be using mass transit. The intent of said bureaucrat is to nudge people toward the use of trains and buses.
If the program has any success, the government will soon discover the revenue shortfall was caused by it’s own action & must then invent another tax or fee to subsidize that shortfall.
This is what governments do. They constantly cause more problems than they ever solve.
A surgeon at Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital in London began trials of a new device that uses an Xbox Kinect camera to sense body position. Just by waving his arms the surgeon can consult and sift through medical images, such as CT scans or real-time X-rays, while in the middle of an operation.
Maintaining a sterile environment in the operating room is paramount, but scrubbing in and out to scroll through scan images mid-operation can be time-consuming and break a surgeon’s concentration.
Depending on the type of surgery, a surgeon will stop and consult medical images anywhere from once an hour to every few minutes. To avoid leaving the table, many surgeons rely on assistants to manipulate the computer for them, a distracting and sometimes frustrating process.
“Up until now, I’d been calling out across the room to one of our technical assistants, asking them to manipulate the image, rotate one way, rotate the other, pan up, pan down, zoom in, zoom out,” says Tom Carrell, a consultant vascular surgeon at Guy’s and St Thomas’, who led the operation on May 8th to repair an aneurism in a patient’s aorta. With the Kinect, he says, “I had very intuitive control”.
Carrell used the system to look at a 3D model of a section of the abdominal aorta, captured on a CT scan. This was projected on to a 2D live image-feed of the operation site, taken with a fluoroscopic X-ray camera. So Carrell could see what was happening inside the patient, as well as using the 3D model to help navigate the twists, turns and branches of the aorta. He says he consulted the system four or five times during the 90-minute operation.
Being able to check the images easily also helps surgeons maintain their concentration throughout the procedure. “You’re just doing all of this stuff non-verbally and it just happens much more quickly. You’re maintaining the flow of what’s going on,” says Carrell.
But manipulating a “touchless” medical image-viewer in a room filled with surgeons, nurses, machines, trays, cables and lights poses challenges of its own.
“You usually think of Kinect in a game-like scenario where you can jump around and move your hands as wide as possible, but surgeons are not allowed to reach such a large area,” says Gerardo Gonzalez of Microsoft Research in Cambridge, UK, who helped develop the system in conjunction with surgeons from Guy’s and St Thomas’ and King’s College London.
So Gonzalez and colleagues developed a set of gestures that a surgeon can perform in a constrained space, while standing at the operating table. For the most common actions – rotating the 3D model or placing a marker on the image – the team designed one-handed gestures that combine with voice commands, leaving the other hand free for operating. To position a marker, for example, the surgeon simply points at the image to activate a cursor and says, “place marker”. Other functions, such as panning or zooming, require two hands.
Despite initial misgivings, Carrell is eager to continue working with the system. “I thought this was going to be a lot more awkward to start off with, but I was very pleased with the way it went today.”
Attribution: New Scientist