Many will say that the Democratic Party is not that far to the left, but let’s take a look at what is stated by some leaders of both the Socialist and Communist parties. Many will state that the Democrats still represent the people, but we have to question that especially since they are now issuing voter rights to illegal aliens that are not citizens of our nation and they have not stated they would honor the Constitution. Let us take a look at the part of the Constitution, which deals with voter rights. The 15th Amendment addresses the idea of a person being a citizen to be able to vote.

Section 1 of the 15th Amendment states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude-“

We continue to the 19th Amendment to see that Amendment gives the right to vote to women.

take our poll - story continues below

Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd? Will You Be Voting In Person November 3rd?

Should the Government be Mandating Masks? * Yes No My State Is Not Allowing In Person Voting

Email *

Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Completing this poll grants you access to DC Clothesline updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

19th Amendment of the Constitution states:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Please notice that in both Amendments, it is never ever stated that illegal aliens shall have the right to vote. People who broke the law to enter into the United States do not have the right to vote.

This is just one thing that the Democrats have now begun to allow in California. But let’s get back to the Democratic Party and their alignment with the socialists and Communists. We will begin way back in 1944 when a man who ran for President under the banner of Socialism.

Trending: Hundreds Charged Worldwide In Takedown Of Largest Child Pornography Website 6,320 views

“Norman Thomas, the six-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S.President said the following in a 1944 speech: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing it happened…I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”

Remember, this one part of this article because it shows the Democratic Party adopted the Socialist Party platform back in 1944. Our nation has not fully accepted the platform and we have to thank our God for not going full brunt into the Socialist agenda, yet.

Now, let us move a little further in our nation’s history. Let us move to 1956 and see just how the Communists began to infiltrate the Democratic Party and help it become much more of a far left group. We have to show just how this happened.

“In February 1956, nearly three years after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, his successor Nikita Khrushchev delivered his historic “Secret Speech” to a closed session of the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In that address, Khrushchev denounced Stalin for the cult of personality he had cultivated, and condemned Stalin’s regime for its gross “violation of Leninist norms of legality.” In the aftermath of Khrushchev’s revelations about Stalin’s abuses, most of the world’s Communist parties abandoned Stalinism and, to varying degrees, adopted the moderately reformist positions of the new Soviet First Secretary. The American far left likewise sought to distance itself from Stalin, rebranding itself as the so-called “New Left,” a counter-cultural movement that would hold fast to the overriding ideals of Marxism-Leninsim while formally abjuring the horrific crimes of Stalinism. But before long, this New Left would romanticize the neo-Stalinists of the Third World, embracing a whole new set of totalitarian heroes such as Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, and Daniel Ortega. The core of the early New Left was formed by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), a radical organization that aspired to overthrow America’s democratic institutions, remake its government in a Marxist image, and help America’s enemies emerge victorious on the battlefield in Vietnam. Many key SDS members were “red-diaper babies,” children of parents who had been Communist Party members or Communist activists in the 1930s.”

Here we clearly see that Communist Nikita Khrushchev had a plan to bring any group into the fold of the Communist ideology. It also shows with distinction that the “New Left” had found its base in the Students for a Democratic Society. Remember this name because it comes up in a direct link to President Obama and his dear friend, George Soros, who had a bit of input in the group in the 1960’s.

“SDS was established in 1960 by Aryeh Neier, who would later spend fifteen years working for the American Civil Liberties Union (including eight years as its national executive director), and twelve years as executive director of Human Rights Watch (HRW) — an organization he founded in 1978. After leaving HRW, Neier was appointed in 1993 by George Soros to serve as president of the Open Society Institute and the entire Soros Foundation Network.”

The Communist influence of the Democratic Party reached into the Students for a Democratic Society, which was a group that wanted a Communist Democratic Party. But it does not end here, it goes deeper.

It should be noted that these groups called themselves “liberals.” That is a name that reflects the Socialistic ideology of the far left of which today has turned the Democratic Party into a new Socialist Party of which many Democrats now proudly state they are Socialists.

“The New Left was likewise inspired by Fidel Castro’s Communist revolution in Cuba, which gave evidence that a band of committed egalitarian radicals could establish a Communist utopia even in the shadow of the evil United States. Leaders of the New Left boasted that “we and the Cuban revolutionaries were somehow fighting the same battle,” and that there were “remarkable … ideological similarities between the Cuban and campus revolutions.” According to the sociologist C. Wright Mills, the Cuban revolution showed that “guerrilla bands, led by determined men, with peasants alongside them … can defeat organized battalions of … tyrants equipped with everything up to the atom bomb.” In a similar spirit, the radical pacifist David Dillinger wrote that in revolutionary Cuba he had “seen man’s cynical and self-destructive inhumanity to man being replaced by the spirit and practice of the kind of brotherhood that is unknown to those of us who live in a country … where the ‘rights’ of property override the rights of human beings.” The Castro revolution, said Dillinger, had seemingly erased “the artificial distinctions of class and status” that had previously plagued Cuba. Hierarchy had been dissipated in an “exhilarating atmosphere of freedom, self-reliance, and individual initiative.” Todd Gitlin viewed Cuba as “a refuge from [the] nationalist smugness” and racism that afflicted America. “When I tried to explore the history of racism in Cuba,” he said, “I had the feeling I was asking Martians to comment on an earthly sin.” There was nothing Castro or the Cubans could do or say that would draw Gitlin’s disapproval. In 1967, for example, Gitlin effusively praised a speech wherein Castro had said: “There could be nothing more honorable for this country than for its sons to know how to fight to death, spilling even the last drops of their blood for the liberation of the peoples, which is the liberation of humanity.” Inspired by what he had witnessed in Vietnam and Cuba, Tom Hayden dreamed of “an American form of guerrilla warfare based in the slums” which could trigger “a crisis point” in the ghettos and “create possibilities of meaningful change.” Riots, he said, were the very essence of “people making history.” Hayden characterized the bloody Newark, New Jersey riots of July 1967 as a “celebration of a new beginning [in which] people felt as though for a moment they were creating a community of their own.” At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, SDS protestors, organized by Hayden,created a riot in order to destroy the electoral chances of the pro-war liberal Hubert Humphrey, and thereby set the stage for a confrontation with the Nixon Administration over the Vietnam War. Amid the mayhem, Hayden recited the Maoist slogan “Dare to struggle, dare to win”; he fulminated about “the new Nazis” who had risen to power in America; he orchestrated a confrontation between “a police state and a people’s movement”; and he promised to “make sure that if blood flows, it flows all over the city.” Hayden and his six cohorts — among whom were Jerry Rubin, Abby Hoffman and Black PantherBobby Seale — were later arrested and indicted for crossing state lines to incite a riot. The defendants became known as The Chicago Seven. In a celebrated trial (whose guilty verdicts were subsequently overturned on a technicality), they were given token sentences. In 1969, SDS began splintering into factions, one of which, calling itself Weatherman, was elected to SDS leadership and proclaimed that the time had come to launch a race war on behalf of the Third World and against the United States. This new entity dissolved SDS and formed a terrorist cult in its place, which took the name Weather Underground. By the early 1970s, the openly defiant and revolutionary New Left had spent its political capital and was a dying movement. But its adherents remained committed to the cause, altering their tactics so as to work within the system in a manner the New Left had previously chosen not to do. These latter-day leftists incorporated the tactics of the infamous Saul Alinsky, seeking to change society by first infiltrating its major institutions – the schools, the media, the churches, the entertainment industry, the labor unions, and the three branches of government – and then implementing policies from those positions of power. Most notably, the ex-New Leftists found a home in the Democratic Party. By 1972, they had seized control of the party, as evidenced by the nomination of George McGovern as the Democratic presidential candidate on an antiwar platform that cast America’s military involvement in Southeast Asia as an immoral, imperialistic venture. By way of its political ascendancy within the Democratic Party, the New Left, in a political sense, effectively killed off the classical centrist liberals who had vigorously opposed Communist totalitarianism. After accomplishing this parricide, the New Left occupied the corpse of authentic liberalism (i.e., the Democratic Party) and appropriated the name, “liberalism.”

Though the New Left officially burned out decades ago, its radical legacy lives to this day in the Democratic Party.

* Major Resource: The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America , by Richard J. Ellis (University Press of Kansas, 1998) .

The New Left Defined By Discover The Networks – 2007

The New Left emerged in the 1960s as a rejection of the “excesses” of Stalinism, and as a means of preserving the utopian communist dream without having to support (or be associated with) Stalin’s atrocities. New Leftists believed that the Stalinist state which had murdered millions and erected an edifice of totalitarian lies was a deformation of the socialist ideal that socialists themselves would be able to overcome. When Khruschev launched the process of de-Stalinization in 1956, New Leftists saw it as the prelude to a humanist future founded on a socialist economic base that was infinitely superior in rationality and productive potential to its capitalist competitor. From its earliest days, the New Left defined itself by negatives, as “anti-anti Communist.” It was a “new” Left because it did not want to identify with communism. But neither did it want to oppose Communism, because then it would have had to support America’s efforts in the Cold War. “Anti-anti Communism” was the code for its anti-Americanism. What the Left wanted was to oppose America and its “sham democracy.” Thus there emerged a New Left that despised the United States and everything for which it stood. As a logical outgrowth of this hatred, the New Left sought to create a new socialist order — a prerequisite for which would be to wipe clean the slate of the old order. As the leftist philosopher/professor Richard Rorty once explained, when this New Left spoke of America it did so only in terms of “mockery and disgust”; it viewed national pride as “appropriate only for chauvinists”; and it associated American patriotism with the endorsement of atrocities against Native Americans, ancient forests, and African slaves. According to Rorty, the Vietnam War — which he described as “an atrocity of which Americans should be deeply ashamed” — played a major role in intensifying this hatred of country. Along with the “endless humiliation inflicted on African-Americans,” said Rorty, the War convinced the New Left[ists], which had previously recognized the “errors” of Marxism, that something was “deeply wrong with their [own] country, and not just mistakes correctable by reforms.” As a result, they became neo-Marxists and revolutionaries. By the end of the Sixties, the New Left had devolved into a movement virtually indistinguishable from the Communist predecessor it had claimed to reject. This was as true of its Marxist underpinnings, as of its anti-Americanism or its indiscriminate embrace of totalitarian revolutions and revolutionaries abroad. The New Left imploded at the end of the Sixties a victim of its own revolutionary enthusiasms, which led it to pursue a violent politics it could not sustain. America’s withdrawal from Vietnam in the early Seventies deprived the New Left of the immediate pretext for its radical agendas. Many of its cadre retired from the “revolution in the streets” they had tried to launch and entered the Democratic Party. Others turned to careers in journalism and teaching, the professions of choice for secular missionaries. Still others took up local agitations and discrete campaigns in behalf of saving the environment, feminist issues and gay rights — without giving up their radical illusions. In the 1980s, spurred by the Soviet-sponsored “nuclear freeze” campaign and by the “solidarity” movements for Communist forces in Central America, the Left began to regroup without formally announcing its re-emergence or proclaiming a new collective identity as its Sixties predecessor had done. This synopsis of the New Left is derived from the following articles written by David Horowitz: “Taking on the Neo-Coms, Part 1“; “Taking on the Neo-Coms, Part II“; “Reality and Dream“; and “Richard Rorty and the Future of the Left.””

If we take a very close look again we will find a number of groups whom have moved into the Democratic Party that now has nearly become the Socialist Party; which does not bear well for our Constitution or our freedom. Below we show the direct links to the Democratic Party with the Socialists.

Democrats and Socialism:

You Might Like

In April 2010, the official website of the Social Democrats USA (SDUSA) revealed that organization’s ties to the Democratic Party. Describing itself as a “Party Within a Party,” SDUSA stated the following: “The Social Democrats, USA kept the name Socialist Party for our political arm because we are the party of Eugene Debs, Mother Jones, Helen Keller, Carl Sandburg, Norman Thomas, A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin, and thousands of people who worked to build the civil rights and trade union movements in this country. Many good folks gave their lives in these movements. “The Socialist Party, USA, in 1956, chose to stop running candidates of its own, except on rare occasion. During the 1960’s, we began to work in the Democratic Party. This is where our allies in the civil rights and trade union movement worked and continue to work politically. We are proud of what we helped accomplish within the Democratic Party, particularly the civil rights legislation and anti-poverty programs of the the 1960’s. The struggle continues…. “Our movement has been involved in the left wing of the Democratic Party since 1947. Socialist Party members helped found Americans for Democratic Action. ADA is this country’s premiere “anti-Communist, liberal” organization. We are proud of our long relationships with Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, and others. We look forward to forging a good working relationship with our fellow pro-labor, anti-totalitarian, left Democrats.” Late in 2010, Communist Party USA member C.J. Atkins called for his comrades to drop their “communist” label, so that they could work more effectively inside the Democratic Party. Soon thereafter, Joe Sims, co-editor of the CPUSA publication Peoples World, acknowledged not only that collaboration with the Democrats “will be an area of engagement for those wanting to make a difference,” but also that communists might someday be able to “capture” the Democratic Party entirely. Sims warned, however, against dissolving the CPUSA entirely into the Democratic Party. Rather, he advised his organization to remain a separate entity, working both inside and outside the Democratic Party as circumstances required.”

Once again, we see links to both the Socialists and Communists to the Democratic Party and this should be very concerning to people who want a free United States and one that follows our Constitution.

Once you read all of this, you should be able to understand why the Democrats have used names such as, Progressives, Liberals, New Left, and other such names that are Not beneficial to our Constitution or our Freedom. In the paragraphs above, we see that the Socialist Democratic Party has merged into the Democratic Party using the code words for the Socialists, Progressives or Liberals. As has been shown, the Socialists have “used” the Democratic Party to advance their agenda from within the Democratic Party and that is not done in the Republican Party because the Republicans live by the Constitution and do not wish to destroy it like the Democrats wish to do. But let us show you the Communist connection below. We should note that with both the Socialists and the Communists, George Soros’ name seems to pop up paving the road with his money to obtain the destruction of the nation and Constitution.

Communist-Democratic Alliance

In January 2015, Communist Party USA National Committee chairman John Bachtell published an essay in People’s World stating that American communists were eager to work with the Democratic Party in order to advance their goals. For details, click here. During Bush’s first term, Democratic Party politicians demanded that he enact Campaign Finance Reform, ostensibly to reduce the influence of wealthy contributors to political candidates. But the Democrats included in the legislation a tiny provision for so-called “527” organizations that would allow ultra-wealthy radicals such as their ally George Soros to contribute unlimited sums of money to the parties and candidates of their choice. The leaders of one of these “Shadow Party” organizations, MoveOn.org, jointly said of the Democratic Party following the 2004 election (in which Democrat John Kerry lost by three million votes to George W. Bush): “Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it….” Today’s ruling Democratic Party faction, whose members include the so-called “Shadow Party” and its constituent elements, call themselves “progressive Democrats.” These Democrats themselves have a leftwing faction in the House of Representatives which is formally organized into the Progressive Caucus.”

In the first paragraph, we see that the Communist Party, like the Socialist Party in 2015, decided to work inside the Democratic Party to get their job done. We clearly see that George Soros is involved in these groups and Soros even helped develop the “Shadow Party.” Look that up on the link to see just how that is used and probably has connections to the now widely known “Deep State.” If anything comes of this article, please know that this shows the extent of the Socialist and Communist influence of the Democratic Party and this is why today we hear more and more of the Democrats say they are Socialist Democrats. That means the Democrats have not just allowed our enemies into their ranks but they now use the Democrat title to forward the ideologies of the enemies of our Constitution and our freedom.

We, as a nation, should never allow another Democrat into office until such time that they come out and boldly dismiss the ideas that the Socialists and Communists push within the Democratic Party.

Today, we believe that the Democratic Party is nothing more than a front for the Socialists and Communists that wish to destroy our country. The words in this article expose what is really going on within the Democratic Party today.

If you wish to see our nation turn into a Socialist state, you vote for the Democrats that use the platforms of the Socialists and Communists within their party. We have tried to rip the cloak off the Democratic Party of today to illustrate just how they have allowed the enemy to flow in their party within their groups to promote the destruction of our Constitution and our very freedom. Please pass this information on so others may well know what the Democrats have become.

Courtesy of Freedom Outpost

Leon Puissegur is a Disabled Vietnam Veteran with 3 children and 9 grandchildren. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for 43 years. He is an award winning author and has been writing opinion pieces over the years and in just the last few years has written 4 books and a large amount of articles on many sites. You can purchase his books at Amazon. Pick up his latest The Oil Man.