Unriddling the Radical Worldview of President Obama - Part 3
by ANDREW MIILLER
The New Party
On the evening of Jan. 11, 1996, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party. Formed in opposition to President Bill Clinton’s “centralist” policies, this party was active in Chicago from 1992 to 1998. It purposed to force the Democratic Party further to the left through a process known as electoral fusion, where the same candidate can receive nomination from more than one political party.
The White House has tried to deny this fact, maintaining that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” This statement isn’t a true denial, however, in that the process of electoral fusion used by the New Party would have allowed Obama to be a New Party candidate and a Democratic Party candidate at the same time.
Additionally, evidence obtained from the Wisconsin Historical Society by journalist Stanley Kurtz now definitively establishes that Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office as an Illinois state senator. The New Party functioned primarily as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and was deeply influenced by the socialist economics of Frances Fox Piven.
Born in Canada to Russian immigrant parents, Piven grew up to become a member of the Democratic Socialists of America and an influential social economist at Columbia University. Along with her long-time collaborator and future husband, Richard Cloward, she authored an article in the Nation magazine in 1966 titled “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.”
In the article, Cloward and Piven advocated a strategy to overload the U.S. welfare system as a means to create an economic crisis that would force the U.S. government to implement a constitutionally guaranteed minimum income for all citizens. Once the local governments went bankrupt keeping up with their new welfare demands, they would be forced to apply for federal bailouts, according to this strategy. Then, under threat of civil unrest, the federal government would be forced to reform the tax system in such a way as to facilitate “outright redistribution of income” (May 1966).
Critics of this strategy have labeled it as Marxist economics. Piven seems unoffended by this accusation. “Our model could be the Manifesto,” she said in a 2009 speech on labor unions. “But the Manifesto, The Communist Manifesto, was really too general for the purposes that we have, that we need, to put the strategic work to today.”
In comments made at the annual Left Forum 2012, Piven described the Occupy Wall Street movement: “There is room for all of us. Religious leftists, people who think peace is the answer, those who think that wholesome food is what we really need, ecologists and old-fashioned Democrats, Democratic socialists, socialists and Communists.”
Both ACORN and the Chicago New Party utilized classic Alinskyite tactics to advance the agenda of income redistribution. So, although neither of these organizations espouse full-out Marxist-Leninist philosophy, both attracted some Communist support. In one sense, they were even more dangerous.
In 1995, Illinois State Sen. Alice Palmer endorsed Obama as her preferred successor at a fund-raiser held in the living room of Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Both Ayers and Dohrn were radical Marxist revolutionaries in the Vietnam War era who founded the Weather Underground, a terrorist arm of Students for a Democratic Society. Like Piven, they also thought the Clinton administration to be too right wing, and purposed to force the “outright redistribution of income.”
Such a radical leftist approach to economics has increased America’s national debt by $8 trillion during the seven years the Obama administration has been in office. The nation is on the verge of a financial crisis. Some hope that the threat of such a crisis will force
people to agree to higher taxes on rich and middle-class Americans.
The real outcome, however, can only be civil unrest and economic collapse.
During and after World War II, the renowned educator and televangelist Herbert W. Armstrong dogmatically proclaimed a warning that Communist philosophy would be the devil’s tool to take from America the greatest national and economic blessing ever conferred on any people. Specifically, he predicted that Marxist thinking would sap America’s strength, pervert its morals, sabotage its education system, wreck its social structure, destroy its spiritual life, weaken its economic power, and demoralize its armed forces (article, page 6).
Many Americans are scratching their heads these days at the strange economic and foreign-policy decisions being made by the president. Some think these decisions can be chalked up to naïveté; others fear a more diabolical motive. Once you understand the ideological roots of his upbringing, however, the president’s decisions begin to make more sense.
President Obama is extending a helping hand to traditional enemies of America like Iran and Cuba, because, like Frank Marshall Davis, he doesn’t believe Islamists or Communists pose the greatest threat to world peace. He believes this threat to be “Anglo-American imperialist domination.” So, by opposing those that he considers allies of American expansionism, and supporting those he sees as fellow freedom fighters against imperialist domination, he furthers his goal of making the world an equitable place. What other explanation is there as to why Obama would support popular uprisings against pro-American regimes in Egypt and Libya while ignoring popular uprisings against the anti-American regime in Iran?
Last April, the Communist dictator of Cuba, Raúl Castro, gave a speech at the seventh Summit of the Americas in which he lambasted America for two centuries of imperial aggression. Yet he issued a personal statement absolving President Obama of responsibility for those past actions. Castro noted that Cuba may have acted in “solidarity with other peoples who may be considered terrorists” in the past, but only if you look at it from the viewpoint of “imperialism.” Rather than contradict Castro, however, Obama acknowledged that America owed a debt to the rest of the world and issued a promise that Washington would never again meddle in Latin American affairs. Again, like Frank Marshall Davis, Obama seems to view Cuba’s suffering not so much as a result of communism, but more as a result of “Anglo-American imperialist domination.”
On the domestic front, President Obama has neutered local police forces, knowingly released thousands of convicted criminals onto American streets, and granted amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants flooding across the southern border. All this sounds like a national security nightmare, but to someone like Frank Marshall Davis, or Bill Ayers, or Saul Alinsky, the police are nothing but agents of capitalist corporations devoted to oppressing the proletarian masses. Thus, the police and law-abiding citizens must suffer to make the world a more equitable place for those living a life of lawlessness!
Americans today are not living in the nation of our Founding Fathers, or even of our own fathers. The ideological roots of the current presidential administration are more radical than the public has been led to believe, and it is certain that the devil will use this fact to his advantage. The sad truth is that humanity will have to endure a time of intense suffering due to its own hardheadedness. But the wonderful truth is that this time of suffering immediately precedes the greatest event in history.
This world’s systems of government and economics—not just communism but even democracy and capitalism—will never bring about good governance, prosperity and equality. However, at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, this world will experience a form of government that will establish these things—a system that only He can implement!