Obama Appeared At 1996 Event Hosted By Socialist Group

BuzzFeed ^ | Thursday, May 24, 2012 | Andrew Kaczynski

[kristinn]

It's a reminder that the President presented himself as much more progressive during his time in Chicago. In this little-seen advertisement that ran in the Hyde Park Herald in 1996, Obama was listed on a panel sponsored by the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA), University of Chicago Democrats, and University of Chicago DSA. He also supported gay marriage back then.

[kristinn]

Image at source link.

[GOPJ]

It’s sad the boys at the New York Times were unable to find Chicago on a map when Obama ran the first time. They didn’t seem to have a problem finding Wasilla...

[kalee]

Yes, they flew right over Chicago in their haste to get to Wasilla, never even looked down.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

For those Obama apologists that keep telling us he’s not a socialist, this should be fun explaining this. I’m sure there is more evidence like this out there linking him with socialism. Can’t wait to see more of it come out.

[GOPJ]

Are you saying it was intentional? I just assumed the New York Times boys were unable to find Chicago on a map... that’s what some liberal friends told me...

[loveliberty2]

Thanks, kristinn.

Long ago, a Freeper posted the Agenda of a 2002 meeting of so-called "intellectuals" in Chicago.

Note the participants in that conference are the major "players" in the headlines emanating from White House policy makers in 2012.

Romney's cavalier description of the President as "a nice guy" who "just doesn't understand" how the "private sector works" is either shallow and uninformed, misleading, or something else. The "battle of ideas" for the future direction of the Republic is too important to be engaged in on such a level.

The GOP and Romney must engage a thinker who can help the campaign to explain the difference between individual liberty, as envisioned by the Founders, and slavery to government, as planned and carried out by "progressives."

American voters, like the citizens of 1776 and 1787 can understand and connect dots--if they are adequately articulated to them now, allowing them time to think about it.

Picture this: a group of people who describe themselves as being "intellectuals," declaring of the conference: "It will be both a celebration of ideas and a rigorous examination of the roles and responsibilities that intellectuals play in society."

Nothing is so pitiful and shameful that, in a country whose document of liberty was authored by a true intellectual, and was said by him to be a mere representation of "the American mind" of 1776--in such a country, in 2002, after over 200 years of basking in the "light of liberty" first shed by that document--we now have a group of people sitting around in Chicago and plotting how their so-called "intellectual" efforts will play a role "in society." Consequences of their "role" are being played out now in the "society."

As Weaver said, "Ideas have consequences."

The ideas of 1776 resulted in more liberty and prosperity for more people over a longer period of time than ever had been experienced in the history of civilization!

The so-called "intellectuals" who occupy positions of excessive coercive power in Washington today may, if unstopped, precipitate another age of darkness in the world, where the ideas of liberty have been censored, and "other ideas" from other sources have been exalted.

Dr. Russell Kirk years ago warned of what T. S. Eliot had labeled a "new provincialism--the provinciality of time, imprisoning people in their own little present moments." Picture the participants of that Chicago conference, and we have a visual of Kirk's words.

The enduring and essential ideas of Creator-endowed individual liberty must be defended against the "redistributionist" ideas which have led to tyranny in every society where they have been implemented.

Where is the Jeffersonian intellect of 2012 who is up to the task? Whose study of the founding ideas can equip him to help American youth discover and preserve the ideas of liberty for their posterity?

[Nachum]

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

[Jet Jaguar]

Bump

[Brown Deer]

Figures. Barack Obama Pushed ‘Redistribution’ at Historic Socialists Meeting in 1996

Trevor Loudon dug up this Chicago DSA report on the socialist town hall event.

”Barack Obama observed that Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in the 1960s wasn’t simply about civil rights but “demanded jobs as well”.

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is “what does it take to create productive communities”, not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left.”‘

‘Obama felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.’

‘The first is “human capital development”. By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a “workforce preparation strategy”. Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that “money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution… A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties.

‘The state government “can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.””

I think it’s fair to say that anyone who talks about redistribution at a national socialists meeting can be considered a socialist.
But, that’s just me.

Hyde Park Herald, Chicago, February 1996

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Dr. Russell Kirk years ago warned of what T. S. Eliot had labeled a “new provincialism—the provinciality of time, imprisoning people in their own little present moments.” Picture the participants of that Chicago conference, and we have a visual of Kirk’s words.”

Here we are.

[Art in Idaho]

The state government “can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs." . All you need to know about Obama. Hope they use this sentence is campaign ads.

[TruthWillWin]

And this will be thoroughly covered by the media....(not a question, just a statement)

[MamaDearest]

What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

Snip: Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists assert that both capitalism and private ownership of the means of production must be done away with as soon as possible in order to make sure a classless society — the communist ideal — is formed. Socialists, however, typically see capitalism as a steppingstone toward the ideal state and believe that socialism can develop out of a capitalistic society. In fact, one of the ideas of socialism is that everyone within the society will benefit from capitalism as much as possible as long as the capitalism is controlled somehow by a centralized planning system.