Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist — a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy — indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country — certainly on the wealthy — and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance.
What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind
With all due respect, because I do like your posts and you seem to be an actual Democrat, I'm going to give you fair warning on Obama and the New Party. It's true. And they were commie.
Now your link goes to the Frum forum? You do realize that David is the son of Barbara who was one of our major commies up here?
David, albeit a speech writer for Bush is a super liberal.
BIG Difference. State level accepted BY the Commonwealth Of Massechussetts...and even it is having problems.Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country certainly on the wealthy and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance.
What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind
Romneycare? Oh, but that is DIFFERENT, since Mitt is now running for POTUS on the GOP ticket...
National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
you think that person is Obama.....?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 Obamas 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.
Doesn't this dishonesty and deceitfulness bother you liberals just a little???
I mean my God people, what the Hell is it going to take to wake you up???
How about a mainstream (right of center) opponent in the General Election? Someone who doesn't want to tax the middle income more, to create tax breaks for the rich, I mean job creators? How about someone who doesn't want to continue feeding the military industrial complex, by cutting off social aid programs that benefit America's children?
who's for creating the biggest tax hike in history starting 2013?......Obama
who's for punishing rich job creators to the point they flee the country?.....Obama
who's for gutting our military instead of just trimming it?.....Obama
Who's for spending expanding "social aid" to increase dependency on govt?.....Obama
worse than Jimmie Cawtah....definitely not "right of center"...
Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country certainly on the wealthy and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance.
What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind
With all due respect, because I do like your posts and you seem to be an actual Democrat, I'm going to give you fair warning on Obama and the New Party. It's true. And they were commie.
Now your link goes to the Frum forum? You do realize that David is the son of Barbara who was one of our major commies up here?
David, albeit a speech writer for Bush is a super liberal.
I'll hold of my judgement when more facts are known. Whenever I see any poster defending the birther movement in their first sentence I'm suspect. I first saw this on Breitbarts site and naturally I don't beleive they are telling the entire story.
That said if President Obama was a member of this party that has such horrible socialist asperations he has failed to live up to any promise he made at the time.
he has failed to live up to any promise
National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
The New Party is proudly socialist. You can't spin it. Commies. The lot of them.
National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country certainly on the wealthy and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance.
What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind
You have completely ignored the evidence by with Kurtz uses to prove Obama's politically radical past. He was a member of a political party that has its goals stated. We know what kind of socialist Barry was as recently as 1998 in incredible detail--it is a political party with very detailed stated political agenda.
You are so eager to defend Obama that you copy and paste the first thing you come across to justify and rationalize this latest revelation in a coming flood of revelations. I know that you were one of those shallow leftist making Nazi connections to the Bushes, going back two generations to Prescott Bush. If you think that was interesting wait for what is coming about ole Barry's family past.
National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
This has been known since 2007.
The scrubbing didn't work. We captured it.
National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
The New Party is proudly socialist. You can't spin it. Commies. The lot of them.
And Obama was all IN.
With all due respect, because I do like your posts and you seem to be an actual Democrat, I'm going to give you fair warning on Obama and the New Party. It's true. And they were commie.
Now your link goes to the Frum forum? You do realize that David is the son of Barbara who was one of our major commies up here?
David, albeit a speech writer for Bush is a super liberal.
I'll hold of my judgement when more facts are known. Whenever I see any poster defending the birther movement in their first sentence I'm suspect. I first saw this on Breitbarts site and naturally I don't beleive they are telling the entire story.
That said if President Obama was a member of this party that has such horrible socialist asperations he has failed to live up to any promise he made at the time.
At the time?
Stanley Kurtz has decided that Barack Obama is a socialist a case he makes in his forthcoming book: Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism. But what does socialism mean? Many Europeans call themselves socialist, but mean only that they support the mixed economies which every advanced country has, including the United States. Sweden, often thought of as either a socialist utopia or nightmare, depending upon your perspective, actually has a robust private economy indeed, almost all production is in the hands of privately held companies, just like in the United States. Taxes are much higher than in our country certainly on the wealthy and are used to fund a far greater array of public goods and services. But that is only a difference of degree, not kind, from the policies of every developed country from Canada to Australia, and including all of Western Europe. Indeed, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and even Mitt Romney might be said to be socialist by this standard because they support government augmented programs to provide universal health insurance.
What Kind of a Socialist is Barack Obama? No Kind
You have completely ignored the evidence by with Kurtz uses to prove Obama's politically radical past. He was a member of a political party that has its goals stated. We know what kind of socialist Barry was as recently as 1998 in incredible detail--it is a political party with very detailed stated political agenda.
You are so eager to defend Obama that you copy and paste the first thing you come across to justify and rationalize this latest revelation in a coming flood of revelations. I know that you were one of those shallow leftist making Nazi connections to the Bushes, going back two generations to Prescott Bush. If you think that was interesting wait for what is coming about ole Barry's family past.
Wow aren't you the angry googly_poo. If he was a member he sure didn't keep the party line very well as his policies are far from socialism. Feel free to post a link to my connecting Prescott Bushes banking dealings with Nazi Germany to his Grandson. Otherwise I'm going to say you don't know. Many American businesses had dealings with the Germans at the time. Hell, Joe Kennedy was removed as embassador to England because he supported the Nazis. Can't wait to see what nonsense the rabid righties are going to hoist up their flagpole next.
I'll hold of my judgement when more facts are known. Whenever I see any poster defending the birther movement in their first sentence I'm suspect. I first saw this on Breitbarts site and naturally I don't beleive they are telling the entire story.
That said if President Obama was a member of this party that has such horrible socialist asperations he has failed to live up to any promise he made at the time.
At the time?
Did he or did he not promise to go after the terrorists who killed nearly 4000 people on 9-11, even if they were in the Pakistan?
you think that person is Obama.....?How about a mainstream (right of center) opponent in the General Election? Someone who doesn't want to tax the middle income more, to create tax breaks for the rich, I mean job creators? How about someone who doesn't want to continue feeding the military industrial complex, by cutting off social aid programs that benefit America's children?
who's for creating the biggest tax hike in history starting 2013?......Obama
who's for punishing rich job creators to the point they flee the country?.....Obama
who's for gutting our military instead of just trimming it?.....Obama
Who's for spending expanding "social aid" to increase dependency on govt?.....Obama
worse than Jimmie Cawtah....definitely not "right of center"...
What part of my post did you not understand? I voted for Obama as an Independent, and was willing to consider an alternative in 2012, but when faced with the weak field of GOP candidates, I have given up. Mitt wants to:
1) extend tax cuts to the rich at the expense of the middle class. Negative to me.
2) continuing feeding the military complex and actually grow the size and budget for our military so we can continue to be the world's police. Negative to me.
3) he is willing to sacrifice social programs that benefit American children (whose position in life is not their fault, by the way) in order to pay to expand our military. Negative to me.
National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Where's the evidence that the New Party was a socialist party? This just appears to be another right wing smear. It was a progressive party, sure, but calling it "socialist" is a bit of a stretch.
Progressive IS Socialist dunce.
We need a BUNCH of new SuperPac ads on Obama's hidden party affiliation.
You spoiled the Homecoming.National Review Online
This is very interesting. All the birthers may be onto something.
This was a closely guarded, hidden fact that the MCCAIN camp was told not to expose.
While ROMNEY was busting ass finishing up last days at BAIN CAPITOL, Obama was joining a third-party socialist third party, even verified as recent as 2008.
Had this been disclosed before the American public was hood-winked, we never would have dealt with him.
His election as well as every aspect of this administration is how the campaign was carried out, a deceptive scam.
Welcome back, Ed.
You have completely ignored the evidence by with Kurtz uses to prove Obama's politically radical past. He was a member of a political party that has its goals stated. We know what kind of socialist Barry was as recently as 1998 in incredible detail--it is a political party with very detailed stated political agenda.
You are so eager to defend Obama that you copy and paste the first thing you come across to justify and rationalize this latest revelation in a coming flood of revelations. I know that you were one of those shallow leftist making Nazi connections to the Bushes, going back two generations to Prescott Bush. If you think that was interesting wait for what is coming about ole Barry's family past.
Wow aren't you the angry googly_poo. If he was a member he sure didn't keep the party line very well as his policies are far from socialism. Feel free to post a link to my connecting Prescott Bushes banking dealings with Nazi Germany to his Grandson. Otherwise I'm going to say you don't know. Many American businesses had dealings with the Germans at the time. Hell, Joe Kennedy was removed as embassador to England because he supported the Nazis. Can't wait to see what nonsense the rabid righties are going to hoist up their flagpole next.
Alright, perhaps you weren't one of those on the left making such outrageous claims, but the point is still relevant. It irritates me to no end when the media and this administration claim that it is the right that has lowered discourse in this country. The way that the Democrat Party conducted itself during Bush's administration was shameful.
Do you believe that the media did its job to properly vet Obama in 2008? What is frustrating is that most of this information has been available the whole time, and it never made news.
