Barack Hussein Obama is Surrendering American Sovereignty

Chuck Hagel's Astonishing Admission on Syria

The Atlantic
December 18, 2015

The former defense secretary has exposed yet another example of the White House’s negligence.

Last week, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel gave his first extended interview since resigning as Pentagon chief in November 2014. The curated interview with Foreign Policy is worth reading in its entirety, if for nothing else than the insights into how White House officials and staffers micromanaged Department of Defense decisions; Hagel claims that staffers would call generals “asking fifth-level questions that the White House should not be involved in.” (This would not be the first or last White House charged with this degree of oversight.)

However, the most revealing moment of the interview was not an instance of White House micromanagement, but rather indecisiveness. In September 2014, in reaction to the horrific videos of U.S. citizen beheadings released by the self-declared Islamic State, Congress passed legislation mandating that the Pentagon “provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.” The most critical question regarding this policy decision was not whether the program would be effective—almost immediately nobody inside or outside of the Pentagon thought it would be—but what direct military support the United States would provide to the Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria. As I later wrote, initial, limited support to Syrian rebels could escalate to a Bay of Pigs situation, where the U.S.-backed rebels were easily killed or captured, and subsequently U.S. credibility further eroded.

Astutely recognizing that this question was unresolved as the legislation was passed, Arizona Republican John McCain asked at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on September 16, 2014, “will we repel Bashar Assad’s air assets that will be attacking [the rebels]?” The then-Pentagon chief replied, “Any attack on those that we have trained and who are supporting us, we will help ’em.” In his recent Foreign Policy interview, Hagel astonishingly admitted that he improvised on the spot and came up with that highly consequential policy declaration on his own. “We had never come down on an answer or a conclusion in the White House. I said what I felt I had to say. I couldn’t say, ‘No.’ Christ, every ally would have walked away from us in the Middle East.”

If this is actually what happened, it is an extraordinary case of strategic negligence by the White House. Whether and to what extent the United States would provide direct military support to the Syrian rebels who the Pentagon overtly trained and equipped was a major component of the anti-Islamic State strategy that President Obama had announced just six days earlier. Either Obama had not personally decided before he made his speech or he had left it unresolved or unclear by the time Hagel and then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testified before the Armed Services Committee. Whether due to negligence or neglect, this was not a policy declaration that any secretary of defense should have made up on the spot. It is one thing for the White House to consciously leave matters unresolved publicly to retain flexibility as a situation unfolds, but this instance of inadequate policy coordination and indecisiveness suggests that the Obama administration had not even made a decision internally. This is another damning anecdote that reflects on the Obama administration’s poorly conceived and implemented approach to the Syrian civil war and rise of the Islamic State.

Obama: Lifting of sanctions will increase Iran's ability to finance terrorists

The Jerusalem Post

In a special interview with the BBC Friday, President of the United States Barack Obama admitted that the lifting of sanctions on Iran will increase the Islamic Republic's ability to finance terrorist organizations.

Sitting down with the BBC's North American editor Jon Sopel, the president touched upon a whole array of topics, devoting a considerable portion to Iran.

"Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources," the president added. "We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority."

During the interview, Obama made sure to stress that the possibility of military action remains on the table.

"Iran has proved that it is willing to change its priorities and its strategy," he said. "We have sent a clear message to the Iranians - though we closed the deal, we still have not closed account. I hope that solutions will be reached diplomatically, but if necessary, there is also a military option."

The president is on a full press campaign since the announcement of a breakthrough nuclear agreement with world powers and Iran, speaking on multiple media outlets outlining his administration's signature foreign policy achievement thus far, which is currently under review in the US Congress.

Asked about the hurdles the agreement may face in the hands of lawmakers who have considerable authority over its ratification,  the president said, "I am a certain that we will be able to pass the agreement " in Congress.

Under a bill reluctantly signed into law by Obama in May, Congress has until Sept. 17 to decide whether to approve or reject the agreement between Iran and world powers to rein in Iran’s nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.

Deal opponents in the pro-Israel camp believe more lawmakers can be swayed by detailed arguments about what they see as loopholes that Iran could use to skirt the agreement.

Pressure from AIPAC, whose members' support is widely coveted, could also worry lawmakers up for re-election. AIPAC boasts 100,000 members.

At the same time, J Street, a smaller liberal pro-Israel group, is urging supporters to lobby Congress to support the Iran deal.

Kerry told reporters before the House meeting that the deal "will make the region, our friends and allies, safer. It will make the world safer ... in the absence of any viable alternative."

Administration eases restrictions on asylum seekers with loose terror ties

By Judson Berger
Published February 06, 2014

The Obama administration has unilaterally eased restrictions on asylum seekers with loose or incidental ties to terror and insurgent groups, in a move one senator called "deeply alarming."

The change, approved by Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Secretary of State John Kerry, was announced Wednesday in the Federal Register. It would allow some individuals who provided "limited material support" to terror groups to be considered for entry into the U.S.

Supporters of the change, including Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., argued that the current ban on anyone who has ever aided terrorists has unfairly blocked thousands of refugees.

"The existing interpretation was so broad as to be unworkable," Leahy said in a statement. "It resulted in deserving refugees and asylees being barred from the United States for actions so tangential and minimal that no rational person would consider them supporters of terrorist activities."
But critics say despite the good intentions, the change raises security concerns, particularly after a report published Thursday on asylum fraud.

"In light of these and other facts, it is thus deeply alarming that the Obama administration would move unilaterally to relax admissions standards for asylum seekers and potentially numerous other applicants for admission who have possible connections to insurgent or terrorist groups," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in a statement on Thursday. "We need to tighten security standards for asylum, not relax them even further."

Sessions also complained that the administration was, on its own, altering the Immigration and Nationality Act. "What is the point of Congress passing a law if the administration abuses its 'discretion' to say that law simply no longer applies?" he said.

The change would apply to people the U.S. government does not consider a threat but could nevertheless be tied to terror groups, and therefore barred from entry. A Department of Homeland Security official said these individuals have been "adversely affected by the broad terrorism bars of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)."

The official offered several examples of how the change might help otherwise innocent refugees -- including a restaurant owner who served food to an opposition group; a farmer who paid a toll to such a group in order to cross a bridge or sell his food; or a Syrian refugee who paid an opposition group to get out of the country.

"These exemptions cover discrete kinds of limited material support that have adversely affected refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants and other travelers: material support to non-designated terrorist organizations that was insignificant in amount, provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, or humanitarian interactions, or provided under significant pressure," the official said.

The official said the change would let the administration apply the exemptions on a "case-by-case basis" after a review that already includes rigorous security screening. "Our screening procedures check applicants' names and fingerprints against a broad array of records of individuals known to be security threats, including the terrorist watch list, and those of law enforcement concern," the official said.

Though the change would apply to those who helped non-designated terror groups, Sessions noted that Al Qaeda, for example, was not officially designated as a foreign terror organization until 1999.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, claimed the change was another effort to maximize the number of people being allowed into the country.

"This administration no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt in making these kinds of rule changes," he said. "The consequences are potentially dire for ... public safety."

The Washington Times also reported Thursday that a 2009 fraud assessment found at least 70 percent of asylum applications had signs of fraud


By: Ian de Silva 

Just when the furor over the socialist sentiments in President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech seemed to subside, Paul Ryan has charismatically and cogently revived the issue in his newly-minted VP candidacy, thus rightfully keeping the issue alive as we approach the election. But even Ryan, as articulate as he is, is omitting the underlying point. And that point is that not only does Obama have socialist thoughts—but he is also a Third World thinker.

While some critics may hurl any accusation at Obama without any rhyme or reason, my assertion that he is a Third World thinker is based on my unapologetic patriotism for America and my own immigrant experience. As a naturalized American who grew up in the Third World, I saw firsthand the shenanigans that Third World leaders (who should at best be called misleaders) used on their people.

Consequently, I am much more concerned about preserving America’s greatness than about conforming to the mindless mantra among many minorities that this president is a great leader. He is not. I came to America when Ronald Reagan was president. He was a great leader. And he was a president who was unmistakably proud to be American—not a man who went around the world apologizing for America.

A mainstay in the propaganda of Third World leaders is the relentless assault on the wealthy—and Obama is a master at that. In fact, many Third World leaders, despite being well-off themselves, are particularly adept at haranguing the public into thinking that wealth is an evil. And Obama, despite being a millionaire himself, is inimitably adept at public castigation of the wealthy.

In fact, Obama’s Third World socialist proclivities were evident even before he became president. Recall the famous “Joe the Plumber” moment during the 2008 campaign, when Obama declared that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” That is what Third World dictators do—take things from people who earned them and give them to those who did not.

It behooves us to take a closer look at what else he said in the recent speech where he made the “you didn’t build that” remark. Here is what he said about those who believe their success is due to their own efforts: “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. [Yes, he repeated it.] I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I [i.e., they] was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”

Even a rabid communist in a Third World banana republic could not have done a more vehement denunciation of individual initiative than Obama did in that speech on July 13 at Roanoke, Va. As an immigrant who realized the American Dream with my own hard work, I am stunned by such anti-capitalist poppycock coming from an American president.

Such open contempt for the successful is a common occurrence in the Third World. That is why Third World countries are as destitute as they are—for along with such contempt comes disrespect for private property, and where private property is not respected, no private investment takes place. And without such investment, prosperity is impossible.

Obama apparently lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the role that individual initiative plays in American success stories. His canonization of government as the benefactor of progress is downright delusional. What government program helped Edison invent the light bulb? What program helped the Wright brothers launch the first flight? What program helped Henry Ford build his first car?

By Obama’s logic, almost anyone you ever came in contact with deserves credit for your success. Thus, in my case, it would begin with the pilot of the plane that brought me to America. And then the immigration officer who inspected me. Then the landlords I rented from. Then the banks that I borrowed from. And of course all the workers who built the roads and bridges that connected the towns and cities where I have done business. Oh, I forgot to mention the cashiers who bagged my food at the grocery stores. Oops, I also forgot to include the car salesmen who sold me the cars in which I commuted to work over the years. So, you see how ridiculous Obama’s logic is!

It is a fact of life that before you can expect someone to help you, you must help yourself first. You must demonstrate to others that you are a worthy risk—for a loan, job, etc. And when such conduct brings you success, you fully deserve it, because it was your conduct that made others willing to lend you money, employ you, or support your business.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about this whole affair is the affirmative response Obama has received in some corners. Many Americans are unabashed in their support for what he said. Of course, they are not a majority, but they are nevertheless a sizable portion of the public. That in itself is sufficient evidence of how Obama has managed to Third-Worldize the minds of many Americans.

Socialism Is as Socialism Does

By Dr. Robert R. Owens
August 31, 2012

Ronald Reagan taught us, "How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Barack Obama's mentor as a young man was communist party member Frank Marshall Davis. As a community organizer he was a follower and promoter of the communist fellow-traveler Saul Alinsky's methods and goals. As a professional in Hyde Park he associated with socialist radicals such as Bill Ayers. As an up-and-coming Chicago Politician he attended the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, an outspoken proponent of the socialist Black Liberation Theology. As president he appointed communist Van Jones to be one of his many Czars. Mr. Obama says he is not a socialist. However, simple logic tells us if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck you can be relatively certain it's a duck.

Mr. Obama has told us that he seeks to be a transformational president like his idol FDR. He was bold enough to tell us just days before the election in 2008 that he would fundamentally transform America. In just one term he has accomplished much along the way to changing us from what we have always been into what the Progressives have always wanted us to be.

How has Barak Obama transformed us? Into what is he transforming us? A look at his impressive list of firsts as president of these United States points in the direction he is herding us (lists of Mr. Obama's firsts are found numerous places):

•    First President to have a Social Security number from a state where he has never lived
•    First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
•    First President to violate the War Powers Act
•    First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
•    First President to require that all Americans purchase a product from a third party as a condition of citizenship
•    First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and then joke that shovel ready wasn't quite as shovel ready as he thought
•    First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters
•    First President to by-pass Congress and implement laws such as the Dream Act and Cap-n-Tradethrough executive fiat
•    First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees
•    First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (GM) to resign
•    First President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space
•    First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation
•    First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present
•    First President to send the families of fallen service members a form letter signed with an auto-pen
•    First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it (DOMA)
•    First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases
•    First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory
•    First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
•    First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal)
•    First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case
•    First President to appoint 45 czars to his office
•    First President to golf more than 100 times separate times in his first three and a half years in office
•    First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records
•    First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing to earn it
•    First President to go on multiple global "apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours
•    First President to go on 16 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer
•    First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife
•    First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense
•    First President to publicly read from the Quran & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth
•    First President to recite the Muslim call to prayer in perfect Arabic
•    First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance
•    First President to side with a foreign nation over one of America's 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona)

Mr. Obama is leading us from being the first among nations to being just another vote in the United Nations. Now there's a level playing field for you. And now it's time for another election, some say our most important, some say perhaps our last.

In many ways this election cycle is refreshing. For generations the Progressives have pretended to be something they are not to win elections. They have pretended to be dedicated to the American dream of personal liberty, economic freedom and the belief that America was different from other nations, that as the world's first and most enduring modern experiment in a republic based on limited government we were exceptional. Although the policies of the Progressives have always been at odds with this assumed identity at least every election cycle they would tip their hat to the America of our fathers and portray themselves as a Thomas Jefferson or an Andrew Jackson.

Therefore, 2012 is shaping up to be the election where the Progressives cast aside their mask and run as who they are: the American version of socialism promising to tax the rich and spread the wealth around, from each according to their ability to each according to their need.

If Mr. Obama wins re-election on this platform the Progressives will finally have their chance to give Americans the same kind of cradle-to-grave utopia the happy people of Russia, China, North Korea, and Hitler's Germany have had the fortune to endure. If Mr. Obama wins re-election espousing the true intentions of the Progressives, to change the constitution from a rock solid foundation for freedom into a living document that is a dead letter, he will succeed at his vow to fundamentally transform America.

He will fundamentally transform the dreams of our fathers for a land of liberty and opportunity into the dreams of his father who was a pro-communist social engineer and America will become just another country trying to build heaven on earth by plundering some to benefit others.

As to his utopian beliefs and aspirations President Obama has said, "I am confident we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth."

President Reagan also told us, "Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they already have it."

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.

Illegals released by feds committed 19 murders, 142 sex crimes

By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
July 31, 2012

The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.

All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.

They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.

The findings stem from the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.

While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.

About three quarters of those weren’t eligible for deportation because they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn’t rise to the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been deported, CRS said.

Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the Judiciary Committee said.

“The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws,” committee Chairman Lamar Smith said. “But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives.”

Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.

Secure Communities was designed to let federal officials check the immigration records of those booked into local prisons and jails to see if they can be deported.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency responsible for deportations, said many of those identified by Secure Communities and detailed in the report either weren’t eligible to be deported or were released by local officials before ICE could respond.

Spokeswoman Barbara Gonzalez said that given limited resources, they have to pick and choose which aliens they go after.

“Because ICE is congressionally funded to remove a limited number of individuals each year, the agency prioritizes our enforcement efforts on individuals whose removal has the biggest impact on public safety, including immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders,” she said.

The Obama administration has set records for deportations, removing about 400,000 aliens a year. But it has dramatically altered the composition of those being deported, shifting attention away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and towards those who already have criminal records or who have repeatedly broken immigration laws.

In June President Obama announced yet another policy that shields most illegal immigrants age 30 and under from deportation. That policy won’t fully take effect until the middle of August, but it has already had an effect on those being deported.

Between Oct. 1 and June 16, a day after the new policy was announced, 51 percent of those ICE deported had criminal records. But in the month after the policy was announced, the percentage of criminals being deported jumped to 57 percent — a record high rate.

Secure Communities has come under fire from both sides of the aisle.

Many Democrats say it casts its net too wide, which means illegal immigrants who have committed relatively minor offenses could be deported. But Republicans, led by Mr. Smith, say the administration is actually being too picky in those it chooses to deport, which results in criminals being released back onto the streets to commit more crimes.

In one of the cases, the committee said, an illegal immigrant named Evin Adonis Ortiz was identified by Secure Communities but released, and later went on to be charged in the killing of California man. According to the Los Angeles Daily News, police said Ortiz and two others robbed a 68-year-old grandfather and then killed his grandson when he tried to chase the bandits down.

Obama's "Civilian National Security Force"
05 JULY 2012 06:29 J. D. LONGSTREET

Four years ago this month -- on July 2nd, 2008 -- Obama delivered a speech in Boulder, Colorado in which he promised the creation and establishment of a "Civilian National Security Force."  He further promised it would be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military."

It is well known amongst dictators, the world over, that a private army is necessary to control the great unwashed masses over which they force their rule.

We have seen Obama steadily assume dictatorial powers over apathetic Americans in just three and a half years.  He has all but hushed the people's voice in government, the US Congress, by simply by-passing them and ruling by executive order -- just like any other two-bit dictator.  Some feel even the US Supreme Court has lost the steel from its collective spine under withering pressure from our budding domestic dictator, Obama.

If one did not know better, one would think there is a move afoot to institute a complete Marxist insurgency in America with Obama at the top -- and  -- at the leading edge.

"The things done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today." ... Retired Lt. General William G."Jerry" Boykin says in a new video he has just released .  Boykin is a decorated former Delta Force Commander, US Deputy Under Secretary for Defense, and a recipient of the Purple Heart.

General  Boykin is troubled by Obama's promise of a "Civilian National Security Force."   Boykin says the formation of such a force is included in the thousands of pages of the Obamacare Law, AKA:  "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."   Boykin says such a police force would be at Obama's disposal and is similar to national police forces socialist tyrants used to complete their revolutions.

Then -- there is the expected drive by Obama to regulate private gun ownership within the US, plus the nationalization of some leading industries, and even stricter regulation of key financial sectors of the US economy -- and a pattern begins to emerge.

Boykin says all these moves by Obama fit the model used by societies when they move to Marxism.


New Party leader planned to bring about 'crisis' of overloaded welfare state
WND, June 16, 2012

Frances Fox Piven, co-architect of a strategy to overload the U.S. welfare system to precipitate a transformative economic crisis, was an early builder of the socialist-leaning New Party.

Scores of other New Party activists, meanwhile, have been tied to President Obama.

The now-defunct controversial third party is coming under increased scrutiny after new information further indicates Obama was a New Party member.

The New Party sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

In 2008, Obama’s campaign denied the president was ever a member amid reports, including from WND, citing the New Party’s own literature listing Obama as a member.

Last week, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.

Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

A July 20, 1992, article in The Nation magazine by New Party founder Joel Rogers, meanwhile, lays out the case for the establishment of the party and lists several of the group’s early founders and activists.

In that article, titled “Out with the Old Politics, in with the New Party,” Rogers cites Piven as an early activist in the formation of the New Party, which he describes as a “social democratic” party.

Piven, together with her late husband, activist and fellow Columbia professor Richard Cloward, developed the Cloward-Piven strategy, which called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system.

The duo’s stated goal was to agitate a financial crisis that would collapse the U.S economy and replace it with a national system with “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”

Other early New Party activists listed by Rogers have ties to Obama. Those activists and others were also listed as New Party “builders” in the party’ newsletter, the New Party News.

Some of the key New Party activists with Obama ties include:

•    Madeline Talbott, listed as national field director of ACORN. Talbott is a former colleague of Obama’s from his 1990s Project Vote! Chicago Coalition, which worked directly with ACORN when Talbott was ACORN’s lead Illinois organizer. She has also written about working with Obama as a fellow Chicago community organizer in the 1990s. Obama himself has linked his work on Project Vote to Talbott’s Illinois ACORN. When he sought the endorsement of ACORN for his 2008 presidential bid, Obama said, “When I ran Project Vote, the voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.”

•    Manning Marable, a socialist Columbia University professor. Marable in 1998 helped found the Black Radical Congress, where he worked with controversial race scholar Cornel West, an Obama friend and 2008 campaign adviser who introduced the politician at his first campaign stop in Harlem.WND disclosedthat during that 2007 introduction, West first railed on stage against the “racist” U.S. criminal justice system of the “American empire.”In 2007, Marable was elected chairman of Movement for a Democratic Society, or MDS, an arm of the radical Students for a Democratic Society from which the Weather Underground terrorist organization later splintered. Some Weathermen terrorists, including Bill Ayers, participated in Marable’s MDS.

•    Marxist activist Carl Davidson. Davidson later co-founded Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq, the group that invited Obama to speak at its Oct. 2, 2002, anti-war rally in Chicago – an address that was said to propel Obama to national attention.

•    Quentin Young, key organizer of the Physicians for a National Health Program. Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of Bill Ayers that was said to have launched Obama’s political career. He was an adviser to Obama in the late 1990s. Young himself took credit in March 2009 in an interview with the Democracy Now network for “turning Barack Obama into a ‘single payer’ advocate when the president was an Illinois state senator.”

Socialist goals

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”

Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.

Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.

WND first reported on the event in 2010.

Obama listed as New Party member

In 2009, WND reported on newspaper evidence from the New Party’s own literature listing several new members of the New Party, including Obama.

Last week, Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”

Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Obama Threat to Capitalism

By Sharon Sebastian
June 13, 2012

The battering of freedom, faith and the economy under Barack Obama has been relentless. It has been a busy first term for the President. Obama is learning that no man, president or king, can neither dictate faith nor douse the flames of freedom in America. Obama's severest blow to the nation has been, thus far, economic. As one destructive regulation after another emanate out of the Obama White House, businesses across America realize that they are under siege. Question: What is it about free-market capitalism that Barack Obama so dislikes? The answer: It isn't socialism.

Socialism is the government forcibly taking from those who have earned what they have and giving it to others. Crushing initiative, innovation and self-reliance, it foments class envy, racial strife and government welfare as it devours a nation. A Socialistic government controls the economy, property and natural resources to the exclusion of individual prosperity and achievement. Socialism leads to other oppressive forms of government. Communism requires class warfare. Nazism requires race warfare. Socialism requires a combination of both class and race warfare. All suppress rights and freedoms. If left unchecked, all lead to fascism with government's iron-grip controlling all facets of life, both public and private.

If given a second term, Obama will finalize his attack on American capitalism, replace it with a repressive form of Socialism and finish the job he has begun. Free-market capitalism is the opposite of oppressive systems. Unlike Obama's economic policies, free-market capitalism is the real "stimulus" for jobs and national growth. So, what is the appeal of Socialism to Barack Obama? For starters: Control. Power. Authority over who succeeds in the marketplace. Limitation of rights to those voicing opposition and elimination of Constitutional checks and balances by the judicial and legislative branches of government. Obama's ultimate goal is to bring America, its citizens, its resources, its laws, its courts and its Constitution under a one-world, socialistic government. First, he must kowtow the American people. If re-elected, that strategy will emerge in 2013 to be implemented by his 40-plus politburo of unelected Czars.

Seeking to grow big government, Obama calls for more government jobs. He callously brushes off the anemic, over-regulated private jobs sector as he declares it is "doing fine." Stanley Kurtz of National Review reports that Obama's hostility to free-market capitalism was evident in the mid-1990s: "On the evening of January 11, 1996...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."

What this president cannot hide is his penchant for crony capitalism. He has been quick to award business contracts and "redistribute" tax monies to his friends and political cronies. Evidence of that are his disastrous forays into monumental "green" failures. CBS News reports that, "At least 12 of Obama's favored clean energy companies are in financial trouble after being collectively approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy." Bankrupt Solyndra reportedly shed $528 million and 1100 jobs in 2 years. Is Obama's Justice Department doing an earnest forensics audit of these companies' books to follow the money? Will the White House continue to ignore Congressional subpoenas and withhold documents amid speculations that possible illegalities may lead to political slush funds? Are Obama's cliquish pet-projects-among-friends above the law?

A powerful element of Socialism is that those in power can be selective about enforcement. Earlier this year, it was revealed that Obama's EPA Region 6 administrator, Al Armendariz, gave a 2010 speech about his "philosophy of enforcement" against business owners that are not compliant with the Obama administration's stringent regulations: "It's kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages… They'd go into little Turkish towns, they'd find the first five guys they'd run into, and they'd crucify them and then, you know, that town was really easy to manage over the next few years." Then, there is Ron Bloom, Obama's first Manufacturing Czar, who held powerful influence with the President, who said on video, "Free enterprise is nonsense." Additionally, Bloom commented that: "We kind of agree with Mao [murderous Communist Chinese dictator Mao Tse-tung] that political power comes largely from the barrel of the gun." And, as always, there is Van Jones. Jones is the hand-picked, self-professed Communist who Obama chose to head-up his national green jobs initiative that is at the heart of Obama's economic "recovery." What is it about a self-professed Communist, anti-capitalist, heading up his national jobs recovery plan that Obama does not get? Is it ignorance or premeditation? Revealing a pattern that is anti-business and deemed politically risky during Obama's bid for re-election, all three men have been eased out of their positions under Obama.

One of Obama's staunch supporters, leading Senate Democrat Charles Schumer (NY-D) inadvertently warned American tax-payers and businesses of what is to come if Obama is re-elected. In regard to increased taxes on the rich, Schumer declared, "You've got to start somewhere," signaling that higher taxes on middle-income Americans will be levied post-election. If history is any judge, Obama will dole out middle-income tax revenues to big unions and crony capitalists while leaving government fraud and waste unchecked. Schumer and his fellow Progressive-Democrats refuse to acknowledge that when rising taxes exceed the capacity for businesses and citizens to pay, the money eventually runs out for all dependent on government -- including government workers and civil union employees such as police and fire fighters. Under Obama's plan, all will eventually share the equal deprivation that is Socialism.

In The Freeman Ideas on Liberty, published by The Foundation for Economic Education, Mark J. Perry wrote:

"Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth century. While it promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny. Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery. In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery."

The axiom that, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" does not apply to the Obama administration. By doubling down on its failed programs and policies, it is getting exactly the results it wants -- the transfer from free-market capitalism to socialism. That it does so in pursuit of unrestricted power reveals that Obama elevates his socialist ideology above the well-being, prosperity and security of all Americans.

Obama is discarding the Constitution in favor of International Law

The article points to the abuses by the Obama Presidency regarding International Treaties (LOST, ATT) and the loss of American sovereignty.

by Kevin C. Caffrey
Saturday, June 9, 2012

Ever since President Obama has become the leader of the free world he has decided to rip away at America in favor of the United Nations and International Law. It is sad but true. Every chance President Obama gets he is overriding the United States Constitution for instance Executive Order 13563. This order under the guise of regulatory cooperation leaves import and export regulation by American companies and foreign countries in the hands of international law to decide what America can do, or not do regarding free-trade. A regulation is a law. In the President’s Executive Order 13563 he has standardized international law between the United States and foreign countries regarding free-trade. In other words the President is leaving American trade regulation (law) in the hands of the United Nations, and its manifestation and creation of international law. This is against the American Constitution and amounts to treason. The reason this is important is because of the current fight over LOST the Law of the Sea Treaty it is an issue that must not be ratified by the Senate. The President and his allies hope to give up America’s rightful nautical sea limits of 200 miles. This is so the United Nations and poor countries can benefit from all the resources oil, fishing etc. taken from these areas because of the LOST treaty and gives the money to the United Nations. In the long run this will amount to trillions of dollars that President Obama is going to take from America's children and give it to the world. The President is going to leave are children trillions in Federal debt and Entitlement debt; if he is re-elected. Why give away trillions of dollars that are children will need in order to pay that debt? It amounts to a double whammy for Americans. It appears that President Obama is attempting to tie America to International law like Gulliver’s travels, the giant who was tied down by six-inch people (United Nation countries). This cannot be the American people’s fate and Americans need to be alerted about President Obama’s plans of an International Socialist America.

In a Los Angeles Times article it can’t be said better than by Edwin Meese III: “To secure navigational freedom, territorial rights and all national and international interests addressed in LOST; we must maintain the strength of the U.S. Navy, not look to an anachronistic pact that is intent on advancing a one-world agenda.” The entire article discusses how President Reagan was completely against this treaty even before he was president. Ronald Reagan in a radio address stated: “ … he asserted that "no national interest of ours could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." Donald Rumsfeld will testify next Thursday (6/14) in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee whose Chairman is Senator John Kerry (D-Mass). Donald Rumsfeld will speak in the afternoon after the Foreign Relations Committee listens to some current military officials [Emphasis added] or Obama puppets in this writer’s view. These military officials will tell the committee that instant ratification of the treaty is needed in order to stop the Chinese expansion in the South China Sea. Rumsfeld will comment on what he wrote in his memoirs in which he stated:  “But it had grown into something considerably more ambitious, with a proviso that would put all natural resources found in the seabeds of international waters … into the hands of what was ominously called the International Seabed Authority.” In other words the United Nations and third world countries will have the authorization and international law to tax and have the money flow directly to the poor nations of the world. This is instead of the United States who are the rightful owners if this treaty is not signed. In an earlier hearing the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey was asked by Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) and paraphrasing his question to the General: Will failure to ratify this treaty LOST in anyway affect the United States ability to project force in this region? Gen. Martin Dempsey answered unequivocally: “Our ability to project force will not deteriorate," he said, if we refrain from ratifying the treaty.”

Perhaps another more simplified illustration of President Obama’s willingness to override Americans Constitutional rights is his willingness to do away with our Second Amendment rights through the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). This treaty will be heard in New York this July and its international law jargon will not be public nor will the Senate know the law behind this treaty until after it is completed. This gives the Senate very little time to promote its proper role as to advice and consent before taking a vote on the treaty. “In addition to the fundamental problem posed for U.S. sovereignty by the rise of aspirational treaties (of which the ATT is only one example)… [The fear we as Americans must be aware of] The ATT raises the broader problem of the rise of transnational law, whose advocates argue that even treaties not ratified by the Senate are part of customary international law, and thus of U.S. federal law, and that U.S. courts should re-interpret the Constitution accordingly.” The article by the Heritage Foundation is frightening in how this current administration is chaining America to International Treaty’s. For instance, the environmental treaty’s that may have a great impact on America’s ability to compete with foreign countries in free-trade. This is because other nations may not sign the International Treaties, and thus, like China, and other rogue nation-states who will not adhere to the air and water environmental concerns of this planet will be able to produce goods at a less cost than American businesses. This is not to mention the possible Global Warming policies being pushed by liberal Americans at the national level, in the hopes to muscle America into accordance with the future climate control treaty’s. In fact Obama in 2009 already had very ambitious U.N. treaty ratification plan outlined that we are now seeing the brunt of. It will be up to the United States Senate not sign these treaty’s for the good of American sovereignty. There are petitions on line for individuals to sign in order to let their congressional representatives no how they feel about the various treaties that are up for ratification. It is up to the American people to let their voices be heard about their American Constitution and its importance to them. Our Founding Fathers were wise in writing the Constitution in that they made sure it would take two-thirds of the Senate to approve an International Treaty.  

Obama's 'Land of the LOST
May. 28, 2012
Michelle Malkin

What's green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama's new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty, aka LOST.

The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the "central, and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States."

The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas. They've tinkered with the document obsessively since the late '60s, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here's the bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and Russia.

While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the U.S.

LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House through executive order seized unprecedented control from states and localities over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes." Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat that is specifically tasked with implementing ocean management plans "in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention."

The panel is chaired by radical green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green jobs czar/self-avowed communist Van Jones).

Other members include Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control, and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration's drilling moratorium report.

It is not hyperbole to expose LOST's socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea," she exulted, "rules the land." LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies."