Trevor Loudon's New Zeal blog has moved to

redirecting you there now

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Obama File 101 Who's Been Fibbing Then? Evidence That Obama Was Deeply Involved in Socialist New Party "Sister Organization"

Obama file 100 here

Did Barack Obama, or someone close to him, deliberately mislead voters about the extent of the US president's involvement in the socialist Chicago New Party?

In the run up to the November 2008 elections, evidence surfaced that Barack Obama had joined and been endorsed by the Chicago New Party, during his successful 1995/96 Illinois State Senate run.

According to Obama's "Fight the Smears" website;
Right-wing hatchet man and conspiracy theorist, Stanley Kurtz is pushing a new crackpot smear against Barack falsely claiming he was a member of something called the New Party.
But the truth is Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party. In all six primary campaigns of his career, Barack has has run as a Democrat. The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.
Stanley Kurtz also queried Carol Harwell, Obama's campaign manager at the time: She said
“Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
This despite evidence that Obama was heavily involved in the New Party in 1995 and according to New Party News of Spring 1996, page 1, was a bona fide New Party member (see below).

I now present evidence that Obama was involved as early as 1993, with a New Party "sister" organization - Progressive Chicago.

This organization was formed by members of the New Party as a support group for "progressive" candidates. It's main instigators included New Party members Madeline Talbott of Chicago ACORN and Dan Swinney, a Chicago labor unionist.

In an April 27, 1993 letter to prospective Progressive Chicago members, Dan Swinney wrote;
"I recently have become interested in the New Party as well as committed myself to see if we can build a Progressive Chicago network, working with Madeline Talbott of ACORN - the local New Party convener.
I wanted to introduce you to the NP and Progressive Chicago and would like to talk to you about it to see if there is a role you want to play."

A circa 1993 Progressive Chicago introductory pamphlet stated;
Progressive Chicago was started by members of the New Party who wanted to be able to put together an organization strong enough to win: If that means supporting a candidate running as a Democrat, then fine. If that means running our own candidates in aldermanic or state representative races on whatever line that gives them the best chance of winning, fine.
A Chicago New Party organizing report of June 2 1993 specifically named Progressive Chicago as a "sister organization";
At some point in the future we will have elections for a steering committee, but at this point we are concentrating on building up the internal build up our sister organization, Progressive Chicago. Once we have built up our membership for the two organizations, we will then elect a steering committee and move forward...

Progressive Chicago would be a support organization for progressive political activity...This organization is modeled on Progressive Milwaukee and Progressive Dane...

We hope that Progressive Chicago will be able to rebuild the shattered Harold Washington Coalition and be a leading force in supporting progressive coalitions and progressive change...

The New Party and Progressive Chicago were always financially intertwined. According to an undated Progressive Challenge call for members;

If you're already a member of the New Party, we have an agreement with them that $5 of the New Party dues will automatically go to Progressive Challenge.

According to the organization's literature, Progressive Chicago aimed to;
Unite progressive activists and organizations for progressive, grassroots electoral activity in local elections.
It is a renewal of the old Harold Washington coalition; activists and academics; women; unemployed and union; gay and straight; community organizations and churches; African American, Latino, Asian, native American and white; seniors and people with disabilities; low income and middle income; west and south side..
It was the election of the leftist Harold Washington in 1983 that inspired Barack Obama to move to Chicago two years later.

The Harold Washington coalition, was led by an alliance of Chicago communists, socialists and "community activists", just like both of its direct descendants, the New Party and Progressive Chicago.

Key Progressive Chicago leaders included;
People targeted or solicited to join Progressive Chicago included Obama political mentor and Communist Party affiliate Alice Palmer, Communist Party member Frank Lumpkin, Rev. Jim Reed of Christians for Socialism and Democratic Socialists of America associates Miguelle Del Valle, Carole Travis, Clem Balanoff, Sue Purrington and Jane Ramsey.

Barack Obama was probably approached to join Progressive Chicago as early April 7, 1993 as this unsigned handwritten note suggests.

According to the same note Obama was "more than happy to be involved";

By September 1993 Obama was one of 17 people listed as a signatory on all Progressive Chicago letters - as shown by the second page of this September 22 Progressive Chicago letter to Joe Gardner.

On December 31, 1993, Progressive Chicago wrote to all key members, including Obama, inviting them to a January 19, 1994 meeting.

Clearly Obama's involvement in Progressive Chicago was high level and lasted at least several months.

It appears beyond doubt that Barack Obama was involved, more than two years before his Illinois State Senate run, with a New Party founded, "sister organization" - Progressive Chicago.

It is clear that ACORN and SEIU played a big role in Progressive Chicago, as did Marxist activists from Democratic Socialists of America and Committees of Correspondence.

In 2008, the US media went into a frenzy when it was alleged that Sarah Palin's husband had been involved in the Alaska Independence Party.

The same media apparently believed the Obama camp's assurances that their candidate had never been meaningfully involved in the New Party - and even if he was, it wasn't really socialist anyway.

Here is hard evidence that Obama was involved in a New Party "sister organization", founded by New Party members and run by hard core socialists.

Perhaps some brave journalist might seek redemption and forgiveness from the American people by asking the President some tough questions?

It shouldn't be too hard. The evidence is all here.

Obama file 102 here

Labels: , , , ,


Anonymous Sherry McMurry said...


4:36 PM  
Blogger Cobra said...

What is unbelievable is that enough Americans voted to elect him.
It is true that the socialist media blocked every piece of information that revealed him, but still, enough info was available to those open minded and not swept by the obama-mania.

5:48 PM  
Blogger Carl Davidson said...

What is unbelievable is your continual claim that the New Party was a 'socialist' party, when it was never any such thing. Ir was designed NOT to be a socialist party, but as an effort to win fusion voting, which now only exists effectively in New York state. In fact, many on the left in Chicago wanted little or nothing to do with it because it wasn't socialist. We ran no candidates of our own in Illinois, but we did endorse a few independent-minded Democrats. I'm clarified this point repeatedly to no avail, but some of you seem to think a living wage or fair housing platforms somehow amounts to socialist. Does that mean you have to campaign for lower wages and the abolition of any tenant or small home buyer rights to be a bona fide capitalist in your eyes? If so, you reveal more than you think about the right.

11:51 PM  
Blogger Commie Blaster said...


We'll Post it! Thank you!



WARNING: Video May Cause Purchase of Pitchforks & Torches!


4:29 AM  
Anonymous Ford967 said...

What an excellent and telling post. Obama and lie in the same sentence, kinda like when he says he's for open and transparent government, yet does not openly share a legitimate birth-certificate in good-faith with the American people.

6:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm so grateful that evidence of a past for Obama (not just a personal past written BY Obama, unsupported by people who actually knew him, unsubstantiated by actual documentation) coming to the light.

While Davidson may honestly believe that socialism is not in this group's agenda, I've met the way socialists and communists operate. They hide behind code words and code phrases -- so perhaps Davidson is merely naive.

Taking money from my pocket for limited governmental expenses (to provide for the common defense) is legitimate. Robbing me (via legalized governmental theft) through twisting the Constitution is another matter altogether.

Perhaps this particular "New Party" doesn't go quite far enough for many on the left, but that doesn't mean there were no actual socialist tendencies or intentions involved in its formation and activation.

Thanks, Trevor, yet again. Though you live so far away, you're a true national treasure.

"Fusion voting." Hmmmmm. I've got to wonder about THAT little phrase!

7:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good, Trevor....Very Good.....

Part 1 - This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. What Violation?
Part 2 - This video has been removed due to terms of use violation What Violation?

Part 3 -

Part 4 -

Part 5 -

Part 6 -

Who, where can we get hold of 1 and 2? Anybody got it, contact Trevor at:; and get it added to his off-shore web site at: Screw these freaking progressive commies and the rest of their thugs.............

I have said it once, I have said it many time, Obama is a Marxist Chicago thug backed by the U.S. and off-shore Progressive and Communist movements that will go to any length to take America and the Constitution over. The rest of the people are a bunch of pussy's and stand by and allow this all to happen.

I am posting a brief of this on the Tea Party web site blog to see where it goes. Anyone a member can follow the thread..............

10:16 AM  
Blogger Mrs. McPea said...

Carl, your response is so completely mind-boggling. You don't even argue the logical way out which would be to claim the documents are false or tainted.

You either ignorantly truly believe that these organizations are not socialist (although the proof is given to you in this very article) or you think we are ignorant enough to believe that they are not socialist simply because you say it is so.

Your comment regarding not endorsing any "candidates of our own in Illinois" and your further statement that "we did endorse a few independent-minded Democrats" describes EXACTLY what the article reveals about the New Party.

You may want to take a look at your logic here and realize that there is a very specific reason that the clarification of your "point" has not made an impact. You simply cannot logically look at this much proof and come to any other conclusion than that the New Party, Progressive Chicago and all those who have associated with these organizations have socialist ideologies and ARE therefore socialists.

One thing I can't understand is if socialism is such a good thing, why are so many socialists afraid of letting it be known that this is how they feel? I'm a capitalist and I am not only not afraid of letting anyone know, I don't consider it an insult when someone calls me one.

3:00 PM  
Blogger NWBoiler said...

Mr. Davidson - I don't question that you believe you have been fighting the righteous fight for a long time. However, based on your continued involvement with CCDS ( ) I'm quite certain that your belief system is in direct contrast to the philosophy and intent of the US founders.

From the CCDS vision statement, "We believe that economic resources should be used for the benefit of the many rather than for the profit of the few. To achieve this vision the means of producing wealth -- the factories, the land, and the banks -- must be controlled by the people, through a broad democracy in political and cultural life."

The New Party may have, in your eyes, only been pushing for electoral fusion, but if the party in any way reflected your world view, I'm not sure how it could be interpreted to be anything but supportive of socialist values.

The fact that an organization, whose members had that ideology, felt comfortable that it could, and should, endorse a particular candidate who eventually became the President of our nation, could, and should, be of concern to a great many people.

You keep on believing that the best way to ensure the long-term success of a society is provide guarantees. I'll stick with the radical notion that the best way to ensure the long-term success of a society is to provide opportunity. We'll meet at the ballot box come November.

4:34 PM  
Blogger David said...

Wow... verified proof that a Democrat was in a progressive movement. Big Fing deal..

4:34 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home