Did you know that Barack Obama was a member of the leading socialist party? In a small omission, Barack Obama apparently forgot to include in his resume, he entered politics as a socialist. This just keeps getting better and better. Barack Obama was active participant in the 1990s of the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America.

1.  Barack Obama attended and participated in meetings the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America.

2.  Barack Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA.

3.  Barack Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA.

4.  Barack Obama won his DSA-endorsed and backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate.

5.  Barack Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

See my entire post at http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/07/obama-is-hiding-a-radical-past/

Matthew

So, Obama, who has claimed the anti-war mantle throughout the election, actually negotiated with the Iraqis in July to delay the withdrawl of troops until after the election?!

This is outrageous on many points:

1.  Logan Act prohibiting negotiations with foreign governments.

2.  Opposing the war and calling for pull-out of troops publicly while negotiating a delay until after the election.

<b>How many Americans will needlessly die because of Obama's effort to delay pull-out for his political gain?!</b>

Is this the Hope and Change that Obama supporters find so endearing?  Or, is this plain and simple treason?

See:  Amir Taheri, <a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm?page=0">Obama Tried to Stall GIs' Iraq Withdrawal</a>, NY Post, September 15, 2008.

<a href="http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/report-obama-tried-to-delay-withdrawal-agreement-of-us-troops/">Report:  Obama Tried to Delay Withdrawal Agreement of U.S. Troops</a>, Fox News, September 15, 2008.

Absolutely incredible! 

Obama ended August after his convention with a 7 point lead in the USA Today/Gallup poll conducted August 30-31.  Now, though, their newest September 5-7 poll puts McCain 10 points ahead.  That is a startling shift of 17 points in a week!

I am sure that much of this is thanks to the nutroots hate campaign against Governor Palin.  Also doesn't hurt that she has more executive experience and better character.  She does not have 20-years with the likes of terrorists Ayers, Dohrn, and Klonsky, convicted felons like Rezko, and hate-filled preachers like Wright, Meeks, and Pleger.

Hope and change has found a new home:  McCain and Palin.

Thanks guys.

While most folks accept that Obama was born in the U.S. of an American mother, it is increasingly suggestive that he may have shared Kenyan citizenship from his father, then when his mother remarried, was adopted and became an Indonesian citizen.  In the latter, a school record clearly lists his citizenship as Indonesian.  This would seem consistent with his adoption and the family move to Indonesia.

Obama has not addressed this.  His offered birth certificate is being questioned by a number of folks who claim it is a forgery.  It is suggested that his original birth certificate was sealed and replaced by a new one upon his adoption and move to Indonesia.   It is suggested that in addition to his new name, Barry Soetoro, his adopted father and his mother changed his citizenship to Indonesia.  Surely there will be records of this somewhere but I've yet to see anything beyond the notes about the sealed original birth certificate, the new one, a copy allegedly issued in 2007, an original that Obama wrote he held, and comments about the adoption in 1965 or 1966.  I have not seen anything definitive on any of this to show it is anything more than speculation.

A photograph of an Indonesian school record, taken in January 2007 purportedly shows Obama as Barry Soetoro, religion as Islam, and citizenship as Indonesian.   I wrote DayLife and AP to confirm if this was legit.  I received confirmation from Matthew Lutts at AP at 3:44 p.m. ET yesterday that "Yes, the image is legit."

There are numerous sites now linking to and discussing this document.  It was referenced as early as January 2007  (See <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400371_pf.html" target="_blank">AP article by Nedra Pickler via The Washington Post</a> regarding the school record.  The focus there was disputing the labeled religion but not the name or citizenship.  Religion was and for some is still the hot-button issue but is not, at least for me, a relevant issue.   The alternative names suggests that Obama may have been less than forthcoming on his bar applications.  The question of citizenship is far more important and has constitutional and electability implications that make this worthy of revisiting.

Several sites offer review of the school record and its implications:

-  <a href="http://blog.changeandexperience.com/2008/08/barack-obamas-indonesian-registration.html" target="_blank">Change      &amp; Experience</a>.  Which is also, like TexasDarlin, anonymous,      but offers more careful and even balanced discussion of the school record.

-  <a href="http://www.pr-inside.com/jakarta-school-record-reemerges-to-r755152.htm" target="_blank">Andy Martin</a>, author of "Obama: The Man Behind the Mask", offers a      cautious analysis of the document and its implications.

-  <a href="http://noquarterusa.net/blog/" target="_blank">NoQuarterUSA</a>  offers lengthy discussion on the questioned birth certificate and Obama's name and citizenship.

-  <a href="http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">TexasDarlin blog</a>  offers lengthy discussion on the questioned birth certificate and Obama's name and citizenship.

Bottom line, however one wants to accept or denounce the information or sources, it does put the legitimacy and acceptability of Obama's candidacy and eligibility to be president in question.  I think Obama needs to provide unequivocal answers to a number of questions:

1.  Are you now a U.S. citizen?

2.  Have you ever held as a youth or adult, citizenship in another country?

3.  Did you ever possess or travel using, at least in part, the passport of another country?  (E.g., while in Indonesia, visiting Pakistan, Kenya).

4.  Did you renounce any foreign citizenship, and when, and do you now hold solely U.S. citizenship today?

5.  Can you confirm or deny your name change as a youth from Barack Hussein Obama II to Barry Soetoro when you were adopted by your step-father?

6.  Did you legally reclaim your birth name?  When and how?

7.  Why did you not list your adopted name Barry Soetoro on any forms associated with your legal profession or others that ask for any other names you have ever used?  Have you now or will you update these records?

8.  And by the way, did you register with the U.S. Selective Service when you turned 18?

I am sure these questions can be better worded, especially to extract clear yes/no answers, and I am also sure that there are other pertinent questions that might be asked at the same time.  I do think that now, or later in the campaign, these questions will be asked again and again and that eventually Obama will be forced to answer.  I'd prefer that now so that the Democratic party and delegates to the convention can make an informed choice when they vote for Obama or Clinton as the party nominee.

Finally, consider that if either of the other candidates were asked the same questions, they'd both surely welcome the opportunity to provide clear, documented answers.  That Obama won't or hasn't confirms the need for these to be asked and answered.

Matthew

Look at the final votes on the FISA today, Obama voted Yes in support of Bush and his telecom immunity.  And the No votes?  Yep, Clinton.  When it counted, the Dear Leader could not be depended upon to keep his word.

The No votes:

Akaka
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Clinton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenburg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Murray
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Wyden

Makes you proud of your candidate, doesn't it?

Clinton went on O'Reilly tonight in the first of two nights of one-on-one interview.  Tonight's two-part installment was fantastic as she scored a knockout--gracious, lively, intelligent, and in control.

Two Obama supporters followed and acted almost as if Obama is already gone from the race.  They barely mentioned Obama and instead practically gushed about how perfect Clinton was.  Priceless!

Matthew

Face facts, Obama is associated with and likely shares much of the hate and racism of Wright. It is not credible that he would have shared 20 years with his pastor, friend, spiritual advisor, and mentor without hearing, discussing, and either agreeing to or accepting Wright's hate and racism. Wright now calls him a liar and simply acting as a politiciam for expediency. How true and absolutely priceless to be outed by your own pastor as a liar.

Obama cannot run and hide from 20 years of association with Wright (and don't forget Meeks who is worse in some respects).  Likewise, Obama supporters in turn become facilitators and may legimately be likewise tarred for hate and racism.

Many of the responses here on TPM, and likely some of those to be posted in response to my writing here, not only defend or excuse hate and racism, but often pile on with their own, with derogatory insults to simply confirm what I and many, many others are pointing out about Obama.

I realize that I am likely quite a bit older than some TPM commenters, but it really saddens me to see how little progress we've made in removing racism and hate from public discourse. Further, it is equally troubling to see the lack of respect shared and expressed by Obama supporters in general. If this is the state of liberalism today, it is morally bankrupt.  Definitely there is nothing 'progressive' about this beyond being a new label for being ignorant, boorish, and out-of-step with the rest of America.

Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com

There seems to be a good deal of posturing and threatening here [on TPM].  Of course the Democrats want black votes, the Clintons want them, believe it or not.  However, since Obama is getting practically all Black votes, what the heck do you suppose Clinton should do?  Oh, I know, give up, quit, go home, leave the playing field cause she cannot win, in the estimation of a solid bloc of voters who all happen to be Black.  Uh, seems like you might have more than a tad of presumptiveness going here, the campaign is clearly not over, all the comments by talking heads notwithstanding.

"The Clintons always cultivated the black electorate... fools, how could they realize that none of that mattered, as long as it became a race thing, well, they are White, it’s not much of contest.

"The bitter irony of those of us in the boomer generation who support civil rights, we find we just don’t get it, and we find that practically any attack on Obama can be seen by somebody somewhere as racist, we are marginalized, treated as defective racists by folks who ought to know better.

"Making threats and blustering is not a sign of confidence.  All this vitriol seems more pronounced the weaker Obama performs.

"How long has it been since Obama won a primary..not a caucus, but a real vote?  Is that all the fault of the mean, racist Clintons?  What a cartoonish view of the world.

"Racism exists, it walks the land, but lumping together folks who have stood for equal rights for a long time with the real racists, well, that pisses me off too.

"Perhaps I will get mad and threaten not to vote for Obama if he runs against Satan.  Perhaps if I shut my eyes and pretend I could convince myself of the scenario.

"In other words, don’t be like the GOP books about liberals under your bed, do not portray a racist under every bed.

 

Blackflag wrote this very insightful post this morning. I post it here so it is not lost in a thread:

There seems to be a good deal of posturing and threatening here [on TPM].  Of course the Democrats want black votes, the Clintons want them, believe it or not.  However, since Obama is getting practically all Black votes, what the heck do you suppose Clinton should do?  Oh, I know, give up, quit, go home, leave the playing field cause she cannot win, in the estimation of a solid bloc of voters who all happen to be Black.  Uh, seems like you might have more than a tad of presumptiveness going here, the campaign is clearly not over, all the comments by talking heads notwithstanding.

"The people want something different"--Obama.   He repeatedly decries negativity.  Yet, his contribution:  Flipping off Clinton for yesterday's debate.

Obama's childish reaction yesterday to his disasterous debate performance Tuesday night is at best sophomoric and is shameful.  He actually flips off Clinton while discussing her at a stop Wednesday in North Carolina.  The video captures the gesture as well as several members of the audience picking up on it.  As the Los Angeles Times blog reports, the video speaks for itself.

Obama boorish behavior is completely unacceptable.  He owes Clinton and everyone an apology.

CBS video

More on this:
Corrente, "Stay Classy...". They write: "No accident. Not innocent. If it were, the crowd would’t have noticed and cheered."

Los Angeles Times Top of the Ticket: "He pauses. He smiles slyly as the crowd begins to mumble and then he tries, somewhat distracted, to continue his remarks, smiling as the buzz spreads through the crowd. He'll no doubt deny it later, but that mischievous smile seems to confirm plenty. And the crowd sure sees something."

The Confluence, "Obama just can't stop himself"

No Quarter, "Obama Stands Accused of Conduct Unbecoming a Presidential Candidate"

The Swamp, "Obama fingers a 'gotcha' debate"

The Democratic Daily, "Did Obama Give Hillary The Finger Today"

Balimore Sun, Obama fingers a 'gotcha debate"

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

I realize that it is lost amongst the election news, but the Texas seizure of 416 children from their parents in Eldorado is, to say the least, very troubling.  Ripped from their homes, these children are now held a local coliseum without access, except for those under five, to their own parents.  They didn't do anything wrong.  Now they each have state-appointed attorneys to defend themselves and their right to be with their families.

What right does the state have to sweep in and seize all of these children?  Is there such broad guilt by association to warrant such a brazen move?  Is the trauma worth it?  What justice is there for these children?  Putting them in a coliseum and talking about scattering them around in foster homes is outrageous.  The spectacle of all this is heart wrenching and inflaming for its injustice.

I am especially bothered by the TV images showing helpful Baptist church buses hauling off the women and children.  How sweet, local do-gooders run amuck.  Especially as there are also repeated comments by people with their condescending views of these Mormons and already divvying up these seized kids for adoption and presumably for religious conversion.  Further, local residents show their bigotry in worrying that the residents of the ranch were going to outnumber and take over the local government.

Everything about this stinks.  If there is or was abuse occurring, deal with this specifically.  I have absolutely no tolerance for any type of abuse by anyone.  I will not excuse it or defend it by anyone.  But, I cannot see justice being served by the bigoted and heavy-handed approach taken against these Mormons.

Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com

 

Yes, do you remember Antoin Rezko, that guy sitting in jail in Chicago and standing trial?  Yes, remember how Obama claimed to not know him, then barely knew him, then that Rezko was his friend and benefactor?  Remember that miraculous coincidence where they bought house and land next to each other on the same day without any prior conversation or knowledge?  And what a "boneheaded" but <i>very profitable</i> deal that and the later transfer of part of the lot to the Obamas turned out to be.  There is so much more, but I won't drag you through the details as many of us have covered this ground here before to much insult from some of you.  Well, get your heads out of the sand as Rezko is back!
The Chicago Tribune now reports that contrary to Obama's past statements, testimony today detailed that Barack and Michelle Obama joined Rezko at his home for a party in 2004 honoring Nadmi Auchi.  At the time Obama had just won his senate primary and Rezko was seeking the Iraqi-born billionaire's investment in a nearby real-estate development.
The problem with this, well one of several to be exact, is that Obama has long denied meeting Auchi.  He has also denied doing anything to help him.  He also said he barely knew Rezko, having done only five billable hours of work for him.  And we all know how that lie turned out.  Now, its not just at the Four Seasons Hotel that Obama has since admitted he may have dropped in to meet Auchi with Rezko, but also earlier that day with his wife, Michelle, as well, at Rezko's home for a previously undisclosed party for Auchi.
And Auchi, the guy Obama claims to have not really met or known, loaned Obama money in 2005 through Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company where Auchi is director.
Who was also Auchi's friend?  None other than the late Saddam Hussein.
Yes, Rezko, the friend that keeps giving...
So, Senator Obama, are you ready to revise and extend your remarks about Rezko and Auchi?  Is you wife also prepared to share what she knows?
And, Obama supporters, are you ready to revisit Rezko and Auchi?
Matthewhttp://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

First it was the "typical White person" now its the "small town person". 

Memories of Obama's recent racial stereotype of the 'typical White person' are still fresh.  Add to this now his view of the 'typical small town person.'  Obama is quoted as disparaging residents of small towns in Pennsylvania as being "like a lot of small towns in the Midwest" where "it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

So, how should one interpret this latest disrepecting remark?  Is this intended to gain votes in Pennsylvania?  I doubt it will win him any votes.

Obama is unapologetic in his racism and hate.  Recalling his earlier dissing of voters in Florida and Michigan one has to wonder what groups of Americans he really respects?

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

"Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"--Obama.

Yes!  Obama claimed more foreign policy experience than either Clinton or McCain!  Is this audacity, arrogance, or hopeful statement in look for a believing sucker?

Clinton offered a telling response:

“I’m somewhat shocked by that since I don’t see any evidence of it,” Clinton said, chuckling. “This is, you know, kind of hard to square with his failure ever to have a single policy hearing on the only responsibility he was given, chairing the European and NATO subcommittee on the Foreign Relations Committee.

“And as he admitted in the last debate, he was too busy running for president to pay attention to what we needed to do to improve our chances in Afghanistan and get NATO more involved. So, you know, I, I ,I don’t, I don’t know, I’m speechless. I mean, you know, making an assertion like that belies the facts and the record.”

Obama's foreign policy experience:  a newly disclosed three week trip to Pakistan in 1981 as a college student, travel and living in Indonesia, and visits to Kenya.  Wow!  I'm know I'm supposed to be impressed but having traveled to more than 46 countries myself--including Pakistan, Dubai, Yemen, Indonesia, China, Vietnam, and more--I'm left speechless by Obama's hollow claim.  While I might offer that I have visited these countries for business, pleasure, and, in some cases, while in the U.S. Navy, thus giving me some limited level of cultural awareness, and a definite level of comfort in these travels and in my contact and relationship with peoples from around the world, I would never venture to suggest that this gives me more foreign policy experience than either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.  That Obama would suggest his even more limited travel, his lack of military service, and his apparent lack of work overseas, is comparable and better is both laughable and offensive.

Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com

"Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain"--Obama.