October 26, 2008
Barack is not a Socialist!
Then again, these records may prove otherwise:
Beyond the archived web page from the Socialist New Party is the recognition by the "Progressive Populist" magazine in November 1996 that Obama was indeed an acknowledged member of the Socialist Party.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.Link To The November 1996 Progressive Populist Article
The Democratic Socialist Party of America published in their July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter.
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...[T]he 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.
I guess he was lying to them, too...
(H/T Ziva)
Posted by George Moneo at October 26, 2008 08:30 PM
Comments
Estamos muy Jodido
Posted by: Peter Perez ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.babalublog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 26, 2008 09:13 PM
I ‘m surprised that no one on the Republican camp has brought this issue up. Up to now both Republicans and Democrats have shot down all bills trying to re-instate the draft. However, after Joe Biden’s last gaffe: “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy… gird your loins. We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task… There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go 'whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.' Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound." Well… This little remark has gotten me thinking. What if? Sure enough, good old Chuck “I don’t pay taxes” Rangel has been trying these past few years:
On January 8, 2003, “Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation. Under his bill, the draft would apply to men and women ages 18 to 26; exemptions would be granted to allow people to graduate from high school, but college students would have to serve.” Draft Bill HR 163.
On February 14, 2006, “Lawmakers says Volunteer Military May be Overwhelmed by Military Challenges in Iran, North Korea and Syria requiring more troops who will have to be drafted. Congressman Charles Rangel today introduced new legislation to reinstate the military draft that will include draftees up to 42 years of age.” This bill was introduced in 2007.
On January 13, 2007, “Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced a new military draft bill Wednesday. Rangel said HR 393 “requires that, during wartime, all legal residents of the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 42 would be subject to a military draft.” The number of people drafted would be left to the president.” HR 393 would require a draft of all men and women in the United States between the ages of 18-42.
Posted by: Firefly at October 26, 2008 11:14 PM