Author Topic: The full vetting of Barack Obama that the MSM failed and fails to do.  (Read 55828 times)

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/another-boost-for-obamas-gay-accuser


WND EXCLUSIVE

Another boost for Obama's 'gay' accuser

Democrat who conducted polygraph indicted for campaign fraud
Published: 15 hours ago

by Jerome R. CorsiEmail | Archive


Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Corsi's latest book is "Where's the REAL Birth Certificate?"More ↓



Two recent developments have bolstered a campaign by Larry Sinclair to advance the sensational claim in his 2009 book “Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder” that he and Barack Obama twice engaged in homosexual acts accompanied by cocaine use.
 
On May 17, lawyers representing Internet bookselling giant Amazon.com filed a brief in federal district court arguing that Sinclair’s book is not defamatory.

 
Last week, Robert Braddock Jr. – the Democratic Party operative who taped the lie detector test administered to Sinclair in February 2008 – was indicted in an unrelated matter by federal authorities and charged with conspiring to conceal campaign donations.
 
Braddock’s polygraph concluded Sinclair was lying.
 
But Sinclair continues to insist the charges in his book against Obama are true and that he has been a victim of a White House-organized campaign to discredit him.
 
Amazon claims
 
As WND reported, U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon dismissed a libel case against Sinclair for Sinclair’s claim that top Obama adviser David Axelrod paid $750,000 to rig the results of the polygraph test.
 
Leon ruled in his Feb. 28 opinion dismissing the case that the plaintiffs, Daniel Parisi and his Internet porn site Whitehouse.com Inc., failed to show Sinclair had published any knowingly false statements. The judge concluded Sinclair had taken appropriate steps to verify information before publishing it.
 
Parisi filed March 30 jointly with Sinclair a “Stipulation and Order of Voluntary Dismissal,” which effectively ended Parisi’s claims against Sinclair.
 
Parisi, however, decided to appeal Leon’s March 31 order dismissing the libel case against Amazon.com.
 
“The issue before this Court is narrow and straightforward: Must an online bookseller stop selling a book based on mere allegations that its content is defamatory?” the lawyers for Amazon.com wrote in a brief filed with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia May 17. “The answer is no, particularly where, as here, a separate unchallenged ruling of the District Court determined the book was not defamatory.”
 
Noting that Leon’s opinion had established a standard of “actual malice” in the case, the Amazon.com lawyers argued that the case against the online bookseller could not be sustained because it could not be proved that Sinclair’s book was false or that Sinclair had written the book in reckless disregard of whether it was false or not – a definition of “actual malice” set in the famous 1964 Supreme Court case, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
 
“I believe Amazon attorneys prepared a very strong and correct brief,” Sinclair told WND. “And I agree with Amazon’s reference that the Parisi brief appears to be more for the purpose of further publishing vicious attacks against me personally than it is to challenge the legal findings of the District Court in their March 31, 2012, dismissal of Parisi claims as they relate to Appellee/Defendant Amazon.com Inc.”
 
The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has scheduled Parisi’s appeal against Amazon.com for oral argument on Sept. 20 at 9:30 a.m.
 
Sinclair told WND he plans to be present for the oral arguments.
 
Lie detector
 
Meanwhile, the campaign for U.S. House of Representatives conducted by Connecticut Speaker of the House Chris Donovan was rocked last week with the arrest of his campaign finance director, Robert Braddock Jr.
 
Braddock recorded the Sinclair lie detector test in his capacity as the director of business development for the website Whitehouse.com.
 
According to an affidavit FBI Special Agent William B. Aldenberg filed last week in federal court in Connecticut, Braddock arranged for Donovan’s campaign to accept “conduit contributions” from individuals, “the purpose of which was to conceal the fact that the individuals actually financing the payments had an interest in legislation which was expected to and did come before the Connecticut General Assembly during the 2012 legislative session.”
 
Specifically, Braddock solicited campaign contributions from “roll-your-own,” or RYO, smoke shop owners who sought to defeat a proposed Connecticut law that would have imposed on them a tobacco manufacturers’ designation requiring a substantial licensing fee and tax increase.
 
Aldenberg’s affidavit detailed a series of recorded calls and meetings with undercover FBI officers in which Braddock arranged at least two payments of $10,000 to Donovan’s campaign. The payments consisted of four $2,500 checks in one instance and three checks amounting to $10,000 in the second. The contributions were made in the names of “conduit contributors,” or payments made by one person in the name of another.
 
The scheme was designed to hide the fact that the RKO smoke shop owners were making the campaign contributions in exchange for Donovan’s agreement to kill the revenue measure.
 
The affidavit recommended Braddock be indicted for conspiring to unlawfully conceal campaign contributions in violation of federal statutes.
 
Braddock was fired by the Donovan campaign after his arrest.
 
According to Courant.com, Donovan temporarily relinquished some of his duties as speaker of the Connecticut House of Representatives in the wake of Braddock’s arrest but has not abandoned his congressional bid.
 
The tax measure effectively died May 9, when the Connecticut legislative session ended without either chamber calling for a vote.
 
In reporting the incident, the Connecticut Post described Braddock as “a hired gun from North Carolina who over a short career has raised millions for several campaigns” and “is known as a savvy, cool-under-pressure operative,” who once worked “for an adult entertainment website.”
 
The Connecticut Post further reported that Donovan’s campaign had been selected from a pool of prospective candidates recommended by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
 
Sinclair noted on his website that Braddock, since his indictment, has scrubbed from his social networking Web postings his prior links to Brook Colangelo, chief information officer at the executive office of President Obama and the CIO of the Democratic National Committee from 2007 to 2009.
 
Previous story:
 
Libel case against Obama’s ‘gay’ accuser tossed



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Ayers and Obama: What the Media Hid
by John Sexton





Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, like his connection to Jeremiah Wright, briefly became a campaign issue in 2008. The Obama campaign was quick to distance the candidate from the 60's domestic terrorist, even as blogs continued to dig up evidence connecting the two men. Eventually the issue became enough of a story that, on October 3rd, the NY Times weighed with a piece titled "Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths" by author Scott Shane. Looking back it's clear that the Times' story downplayed or overlooked some significant connections between the two men, connections which may have raised red flags for some voters.
 
According to Bill Ayers' next door neighbor, Senator Barack Obama was a guest at a 4th of July party Ayers hosted in 2005. The date is significant because it effectively undercuts the claim, made by the Obama campaign during the 2008 election cycle, that Obama and Ayers were merely acquaintances who had only crossed paths a few times since 2000. Obama's attendance at the party suggests they were friends.
 
Scott Shane clearly didn't know about the 2005 party. Indeed, he writes near the end of his piece "Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship." But it now appears Shane was intentionally misled by Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt who he quotes as follows:
 

“The suggestion that Ayers was a political adviser to Obama or someone who shaped his political views is patently false,” said Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman. Mr. LaBolt said the men first met in 1995 through the education project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and have encountered each other occasionally in public life or in the neighborhood. He said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005 and last met more than a year ago when they bumped into each other on the street in Hyde Park.
 


The claim that Obama hadn't "spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail" with Ayers since 2005 appears in retrospect to have been a Clintonian parsing of the truth. In fact, it now appears they spoke face to face at Ayers 4th of July party. But notice there's a bit of goalpost moving being done by LaBolt here as well. No one suggested that Ayers was a political adviser to candidate Obama. The suggestion was that the two men were friends and that the friendship might indicate that the two shared similar worldviews. That's the story the NY Times and the rest of the media never fully investigated in 2008.
 


Shane's story does note that the Obama-Ayers connection began with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school grant initiative which Ayers helped bring to Chicago. Obama was later selected to be the Chairman of the Board for the CAC. Shane notes that "some bloggers" have suggested Ayers tapped Obama for the position but he goes on to explain this probably wasn't the case. The impression is that these unnamed bloggers have unfairly overstated the connection the two men shared.
 
However, Shane overlooks the more obvious (and easily documented) connection. Various boards on which Obama sat in the late 90s granted nearly $2 million dollars to Bill Ayers' Small Schools Workshop. This archived webpagenotes over one million granted to Ayers' project by the CAC, but the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation (on whose Boards Obama also sat) granted nearly an additional million in donations to Ayers' group during the same time period.
 
In addition to donations to Ayers' Small Schools Workshop group, the same foundations donated $761,100 to a related group run by Ayers’ brother, John Ayers. In fact, in 2001 Obama would join the "leadership council" of a successor to the CAC called the Chicago Public Education Fund. Also on the leadership council of the group was Bill Ayers' brother John. (Documents demonstrating this connection have been hidden from view on the internet archive using robots.txt).
 
It's easy to claim that Obama and Ayers weren't "close." How does one measure "close" in the absence of detailed personal history that isn't available in this case. It's much harder to deny the connection implied by the nearly $3 million dollars Obama helped direct to Bill Ayers and his brother. Why didn't Shane Scott see fit to mention any of this?
 
Finally, one of the arguments the Obama campaign used in 2008 (dutifully repeated by the Times), was the suggestion that Bill Ayers radicalism was a thing of the distant past by the time Obama knew him:
 

A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”
 


This is extremely dishonest as it suggests that the only objectionable thing about Bill Ayers is his history as a domestic terrorist. Surely that would be enough for many people, but even putting his past aside there is ample evidence that Ayers is as radical now as he was then. On September 11th, 2001, Ayers was profiled by the NY Times in a piecewhich opened with Ayers saying "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough." In 2010, Ayers' wife Bernadine Dohrn said in an interview that she and Bill "are radicals today" and added "we think the real terrorist is the American government." Just two months ago Ayers was in Union Square telling anyone who would listen "I get up every morning thinking today...I'm going to end capitalism." This is the adult who Barack Obama befriended in Chicago.
 
Ayers methods have certainly changed since the 60s, but his commitment to bringing down the American system has been a constant throughout his life. Therefore, it's fair to ask what Obama saw in Ayers, the committed anti-capitalist radical. It's also fair to ask why the NY Times (and the rest of the media) were so quick to dismiss the import of the connection. No one is saying Obama and Ayers were part of a secret cabal, but they do seem to have been friends over a period of years, so presumably they had something in common. Given Ayers' consistently extreme views on America and government, isn't that worth exploring?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/04/Obama-Ayers


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT


Obama’s Third-Party History
By Stanley Kurtz
June 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.





On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
 
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
 
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
 
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
 

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
 
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

 


Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
 
Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.
 
The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
 
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.
 
The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
 
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
 
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.
 
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”
 
This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.
 
In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.


In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.
 
At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.
 
Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.
 
The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
 
The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.
 
To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.
 
I have more to say on the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.
 
In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters  — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.
 
— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming June 25 issue of National Review.
 
Permalink
 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz#

________________________ ________________________ _____


WTF! ! ! !





Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Obama Caught Lying Again: He Was Member of 'New Party,' Says Kurtz
by Joel B. Pollak


 




Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate--contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama's presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico's Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new "smoking gun" evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore--and Obama can no longer deny.
 
When the story of Obama's association with the New Party first broke in 2008, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt claimed that Obama had never been a member. (LaBolt likewise told the New York Times that Obama had "not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005"--a statement that carefully concealed the truth that Obama had spent time in Ayers' home after he began serving in the Senate.) The Obama campaign took up the issue at its "Fight the Smears" website, smearing Kurtz and willfully distorting the truth about Barack Obama's radical past:
 

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.
 
Ben Smith of Politico wrote a classic "nothing to see here" story, taking LaBolt and New Party founder Joel Rogers at their word. The rest of the mainstream media, eagerly covering up for--and campaigning for--Obama, took Smith's report as the definitive "debunking" of the New Party "smear" and failed to look further. The mocking tone of Smith's article ("The dread New Party") put the topic beyond the pale of polite debate.
 
Now, through careful archival research, Kurtz has proven his case--and proven once again that there are many people on the left who have been willing to misrepresent and obscure facts about Barack Obama, as well as many in the mainstream media who have acted as Obama's accomplices rather than searching for the truth.
 
Kurtz writes:
 

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
 


Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
 

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined...
 
The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
 
Obama was not the only one who lied, according to Kurtz:
 

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.
 
One of the most glaring lies--which Politico's Smith readily accepted--was that the New Party did not have members. That is easily proved false, Kurtz says, with the group's own documents, which he has recovered:
 

At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.
 
As for the group's socialist ideology, Kurtz says, the documents he has recovered leave no doubt:
 

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
 
Kurtz ends by challenging the mainstream media to the opposite of what they did in 2008--to follow up on the facts he has uncovered, and "to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency." And he hints that there are more facts to come.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Caught-Lying-Again-He-WAS-Member-of-New-Party-Says-Kurtz

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE          www.nationalreview.com           PRINT


Obama’s Third-Party History
By Stanley Kurtz
June 7, 2012 4:00 A.M.





On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
 
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
 
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
 
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
 

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
 
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

 


Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.
 
Why did Obama deny his ties to ACORN? The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN’s voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN’s political arm, the New Party.
 
The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama’s other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.
 
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.
 
The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
 
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
 
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.
 
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand. He contacted Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt, who claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party. And New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told Smith, “We didn’t really have members.” But a line in the New Party’s official newsletter explicitly identified Obama as a party member. Rogers dismissed that as mere reference to “the fact that the party had endorsed him.”
 
This is nonsense. I exposed the falsity of Rogers’s absurd claim, and Smith’s credulity in accepting it, in 2008 (here and here). And in Radical-in-Chief I took on Rogers’s continuing attempts to justify it. The recently uncovered New Party records reveal how dramatically far from the truth Rogers’s statement has been all along.
 
In a memo dated January 29, 1996, Rogers, writing as head of the New Party Interim Executive Council, addressed “standing concerns regarding existing chapter development and activity, the need for visibility as well as new members.” So less than three weeks after Obama joined the New Party, Rogers was fretting about the need for new members. How, then, could Rogers assert in 2008 that his party “didn’t really have members”? Internal documents show that the entire leadership of the New Party, both nationally and in Chicago, was practically obsessed with signing up new members, from its founding moments until it dissolved in the late 1990s.


In 2008, after I called Rogers out on his ridiculous claim that his party had no members, he explained to Ben Smith that “we did have regular supporters whom many called ‘members,’ but it just meant contributing regularly, not getting voting rights or other formal power in NP governance.” This is also flatly contradicted by the newly uncovered records.
 
At just about the time Obama joined the New Party, the Chicago chapter was embroiled in a bitter internal dispute. A party-membership list is attached to a memo in which the leaders of one faction consider a scheme to disqualify potential voting members from a competing faction, on the grounds that those voters had not renewed their memberships. The factional leaders worried that their opponents would legitimately object to this tactic, since a mailing that called for members to renew hadn’t been properly sent out. At any rate, the memo clearly demonstrates that, contrary to Rogers’s explanation, membership in the New Party entailed the right to vote on matters of party governance. In fact, Obama’s own New Party endorsement, being controversial, was thrown open to a members’ vote on the day he joined the party.
 
Were Harwell and Rogers deliberately lying in order to protect Obama and deceive the public? Readers can decide for themselves. Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.
 
The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
 
The party’s official “statement of principles,” which candidates seeking endorsement from the Chicago chapter were asked to support, called for a “peaceful revolution” and included redistributive proposals substantially to the left of the Democratic party.
 
To get a sense of the ideology at play, consider that the meeting at which Obama joined the party opened with the announcement of a forthcoming event featuring the prominent socialist activist Frances Fox Piven. The Chicago New Party sponsored a luncheon with Michael Moore that same year.
 
I have more to say on the New Party’s ideology and program, Obama’s ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president’s campaign for reelection. See the forthcoming issue of National Review.
 
In the meantime, let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters  — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.
 
— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A longer version of this article appears in the forthcoming June 25 issue of National Review.
 
Permalink
 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz#

________________________ ________________________ _____


WTF! ! ! !









BUMP for Team Kneepadder

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
www.wnd.com

Obama just caught in big lie?

Documents confirm he was member of socialist party
Published: 2 hours ago
 by Aaron KleinEmail | Archive



Aaron Klein is WND's senior staff reporter and Jerusalem bureau chief. He also hosts "Aaron Klein Investigative Radio" on New York's WABC Radio. Follow Aaron on Twitter and Facebook.More ↓


Has Barack Obama been caught in a lie that could become a major issue in the upcoming election?
 
During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Obama’s camp categorically denied he was ever a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.






Ads by Google

Arrest Records In SecondsYou'd be surprised what is public. Find anyone's criminal history now. www.instantcheckmate.com
2nd Bill of RightsFollow the logic of the Founders Read the New Federalist Papers www.TheNewFederalism.com

 
The  denial came amid reports of Obama’s participation with the party, including several articles by WND.
 
WND previously reported on newspaper evidence showing Obama was listed as a member of the New Party in the group’s own literature.
 
WND also conducted an exclusive interview with Marxist activist Carl Davidson, a founder of the New Party, who recounted Obama’s participation.
 
In 2010, John Nichols, Washington correspondent for The Nation magazine, recalled speaking with Obama at New Party events in the 1990s.
 
Aaron Klein’s “Red Army: The Radical Network That Must Be Defeated to Save America” exposes Obama’s presidential agenda
 
“When we spoke together at New Party events in those days, he was blunt about his desire to move the Democratic Party off the cautious center where Bill Clinton had wedged it,” wrote Nichols in a January 2009 piece published at Progressive.org.
 
Now, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online today, reports on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.
 
Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
 
In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
 
Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.
 
According to documents from the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, was a point of controversy for Obama during his 2008 campaign for president.
 
Becoming a New Party member requires some effort on behalf of the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party’s political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a “visible and active relationship” with the party.
 
If Obama indeed signed the contract, not only would his campaign be caught in a lie but it could prove highly embarrassing for him at a time when he is fighting claims, including from Mitt Romney’s camp, that his policies are socialist.
 
Also, Obama’s 2012 campaign slogan of “Forward” has been criticized for its use of a historic socialist slogan.
 
Socialist goals
 
The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
 
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”
 
The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”
 
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
 
Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.
 
WND first reported on the event in 2008.
 
Obama listed as New Party member
 
While Obama’s campaign in 2008 denied the then–presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party, print copies of the New Party News, the party’s official newspaper, show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.
 
The party’s spring 1996 newspaper boasted: “New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).”
 
The paper quoted Obama saying, “These victories prove that small ‘d’ democracy can work.”
 
The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.
 
New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago’s Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group’s support and “encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on voter education and voter registration.”
 
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
PROOF: Barack Obama Was In Fact A Card-Carrying Socialist

 by Ulsterman on June 7, 2012 with 7 Comments in News




While many consider Barack Obama as the most radical left wing figure to ever occupy the White House, a now breaking story has perhaps uncovered proof that the current President of the United States was in fact a card-carrying Socialist Party member.
 


EXCERPT:
 
Barack Obama was, in fact, a member of the socialist New Party in the 1990s and sought its endorsement for the Illinois senate–contrary to the misrepresentations of Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, and in spite of the efforts of Politico’s Ben Smith to quash the story. Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism (2010), has released new “smoking gun” evidence at National Review Online. It is evidence that the mainstream media can no longer ignore–and Obama can no longer deny.
 


Now, through careful archival research, Kurtz has proven his case–and proven once again that there are many people on the left who have been willing to misrepresent and obscure facts about Barack Obama, as well as many in the mainstream media who have acted as Obama’s accomplices rather than searching for the truth.
 
Now, through careful archival research, Kurtz has proven his case–and proven once again that there are many people on the left who have been willing to misrepresent and obscure facts about Barack Obama, as well as many in the mainstream media who have acted as Obama’s accomplices rather than searching for the truth.



Kurtz writes:
 

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
 


Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
 
 
 
…Obama was not the only one who lied, according to Kurtz:
 

Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates. Each of the two former political allies who helped him to deny his New Party membership during campaign ’08 was in a position to know better.
 
As for the group’s socialist ideology, Kurtz says, the documents he has recovered leave no doubt:
 

The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
 
Kurtz ends by challenging the mainstream media to the opposite of what they did in 2008–to follow up on the facts he has uncovered, and “to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.” And he hints that there are more facts to come.
 
____________________
 
OBAMA CAUGHT LYING AGAIN: HE WAS MEMBER OF ‘NEW PARTY,’ SAYS KURTZ


http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/06/07/barack-obama-was-in-fact-a-card-carrying-socialist



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
New Docs Reportedly Show Obama Was a Member of the Far-Left ‘New Party’
Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:35am by Billy Hallowell

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-new-documents-show-obama-was-a-member-of-the-far-left-new-party






President Barack Obama has been challenged before about his alleged ties to the “New Party,” a far-left political group that once served as a third party option in the American political schema. Last month, The Blaze highlighted some images that seemed to corroborate the president’s alleged past ties to groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and, alas, the New Party, despite his campaign’s 2008 denial that he was a member of the movement.
 
As noted, a picture of Obama was published on the cover of the New Party News pamphlet back in 1996, serving as a small sliver of evidence that he had potential ties with the political party. Now, in a new piece for National Review, Stanley Kurtz is claiming that Obama’s ties to the controversial group were extensive — and corroborated — by recently uncovered documents.
 
It was also in 1996 that Kurtz says Obama formally joined the New Party. Interestingly, this is the same year that he appeared on the cover of the group’s pamphlet, which can be seen here:
 


Kurts goes on to share the background surrounding what happened when the commentator first brought to light Obama’s alleged ties to this third, seemingly radical political party:
 

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

 


Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
 
Here’s a screen shot showcasing the “Fight the Smears” denial:
 


Minutes from a January 11, 1996 meeting, Kurtz claims, prove Obama’s affiliation with the group. The New Party‘s Chicago Chapter had apparently recorded the president’s extensive involvement, including a purported request that he be endorsed by the movement.
 
“Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions,” the minutes read. “He signed the New Party ‘Candidate Contract’ and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.”
 


This seems consistent with the above image, which shows that Obama was, indeed, endorsed by the New Party. And, according to Kurtz, a 1997 roster from the group’s Chicago chapter also shows him to be a member. The commentator continues, highlighting Obama’s other purported ties to the group:
 

The Fight the Smears website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.” Drawing on her testimony, Fight the Smears conceded that the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined, adding that “he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement.”
 
We’ve seen that this is false. Obama formally requested New Party endorsement, signed the candidate contract, and joined the party. Is it conceivable that Obama’s own campaign manager could have been unaware of this? The notion is implausible. And the documents make Harwell’s assertion more remarkable still.
 
The New Party had a front group called Progressive Chicago, whose job was to identify candidates that the New Party and its sympathizers might support. Nearly four years before Obama was endorsed by the New Party, both he and Harwell joined Progressive Chicago and began signing public letters that regularly reported on the group’s meetings. By prominently taking part in Progressive Chicago activities, Obama was effectively soliciting New Party support for his future political career (as was Harwell, on Obama’s behalf). So Harwell’s testimony is doubly false.
 
Read more about Obama’s alleged connections to the New Party here.



Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
http://theobamafile.com/_obamunism/NewParty.htm



In this video, Barack Obama makes the statement, "...when you actually ask, well?  This is based on what, this notion that Obama is a socialist..."

Based on the fact that in 1995, Obama, as part of his first run for the Illinois State Senate, began seeking the endorsement of the New Party.  The New Party's objective was to push forth the socialist principles of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), that claimed Obama as a member, by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards. 

Obama had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, an executive board member of the U.S. Peace Council, which the FBI identified as a communist front group, and an affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front group.

The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party.  Obama signed that pledge, choosing to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists.  The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of DSA members and a good number of members of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, a democratic socialist group in the United States which originated in 1991 as the Committees of Correspondence, a moderate, dissenting wing of the Communist Party USA.

When allegations surfaced early this summer of the New Party's endorsement of Obama, the Obama campaign along with the remnants of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America claimed that Obama was never a member of either organization.  The DSA and New Party then systematically attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. However, it now appears that Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

On Tuesday, John Hinderaker of the PowerLine blog discovered a web page that had been scrubbed from the New Party's website.  The web page which was published in October 1996, was an internet newsletter update on that years congressional races.  Although the web page was deleted from the New Party's website, the non-profit Internet Archive Organization had archived the page.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
In the ongoing discussion of Barack Obama's involvement with Chicago's extremist "New Party," online literature from the Party likely reveals that the young state senator not only was a member but had to commit financially to membership. 
This past week, National Review author Stanley Kurtz revived the question of whether or not Obama was ever a member of the Party. Arguing for the affirmative, Kurtz demonstrates fairly conclusively that it did. On the other hand, Joel Rogers, founder of the New Party, tells Ben Smith that it did not. And documents available online suggest that Kurtz is correct and that Rogers is not being completely truthful.
First, there's a bit more background which is relevant here. Kurtz originally raised the question of Obama's involvement with the New Party back in 2008. At the time, the campaign denied Obama was ever involved and referred to the allegation as a "crackpot smear." Ben Smith, then at Politico, wrote a piece in which he quoted New Party founder Joel Rogers to the effect that Obama had never been a member of the New Party because the New Party didn't have members.
On Thursday, Kurtz announced the discovery of new documents that supported his original claim. In particular, he found minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting which read:
Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
Friday, Ben Smith conceded that this proves the White House was wrong when it claimed in 2008 that Obama had never sought an endorsement. However, Joel Rogers is sticking to his claim that the New Party never had members, telling Ben Smith, "'I have no idea what the Chicago people were saying about him being a member,' he said. 'We didn’t have membership, it wasn’t a membership organization.'"
The problem with this is that the New Party website--earlier drafts of which still exist in the internet archive--mention membership repeatedly and, as we'll see, even define what membership meant. Here's the 1999 version of the New Party website, specifically the "Join the New Party" page. Let me pull a few quotes that seem pertinent:
Transforming the face of American politics is a long, hard task. Your membership dollars can help us make each step of this process a reality
[T]he New Party's work depends on our members.
Most New Party members join as a monthly sustainer. 
Sustainer pledges are automatically deducted from members' credit cards
All New Party members receive a free subscription to our quarterly newsletter
If you have any questions about the New Party that weren't answered on our site, or if you want to know if your membership is current, please contact our membership coordinator
There's also a "Chapters & Members" page which gives a link if you want to "Become an At-Large Member." Here's the at-large member form which is addressed to the New Party headquarters in Brooklyn "ATTN: Membership Services." The form also notes that a one-time contribution of $36 is considered "basic membership." The "Jobs and Internships" page has a job listing for Executive Director which reads, "With close to 20,000 members and a growing staff (now 25), the organization is poised to elect progressive majorities in cities across the country..."
What is evident looking at these old websites is that membership in the New Party was contingent on making a donation. That is spelled out even more clearly on this 1997 New Party web page titled "New Party Profile." It reads in part:
The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.
Members
From 1992 through early 1997, the New Party grew to 10,000 members. Growth has been accelerating-membership doubled each of the last two years-and we hope to be at 20,000 by the end of 1997.
Clearly the New Party did have members. Its membership was based on dues. And dues-paying members were allowed to vote. This completely contradicts every part of the statement Joel Rogers gave to Ben Smith in 2008 and this week. As the founder of the group, there's no way he could have been unaware of this, so we must conclude he was intentionally not telling the truth.
But the fact that New Party members were "dues-paying" suggests something else. Let's examine the statement Stanley Kurtz discovered once again:
Barack Obama... signed the New Party “Candidate Contract”... He also joined the New Party.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/08/New-Party-Literature-Suggests-Obama-Paid-Dues-to-Join



Here is the New Party of Illinois "Candidate Contract" listed on a website in 1999. We can't be completely sure, but this is likely the same or similar to the document Obama signed in 1996. Note that the contract has two parts. The first part stipulates what the New Party will do for the candidate. The second part lays out what the candidate is expected to do for the New Party. And right there, consistent with everything else we've seen, item #2 says "Join the New Party as a dues-paying member." Here's a screenshot:

Based on the various statements on the Party's website and the "Candidate Contract" Obama signed, it's clear that joining the New Party is synonymous with making a monetary contribution (of at least $36). The meeting minutes say Obama "joined the New Party," so we can say with near certainty that, like all the other members, he paid to join.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Self-Made Man

Barack Obama’s autobiographical fictions

Andrew Ferguson

June 18, 2012, Vol. 17, No. 38




There’s a DVD that’s been sitting in its jewel box on my desk for a few years (I’ve been busy​—​no time to tidy up), and the other day, after reading through two brand-new books about Barack Obama, one admiring, the other ferociously disapproving, I snapped the cellophane at last and slid the disk into my computer drive.
 
I bought the video on a visit to Occidental College in Los Angeles, not long after Obama took office. He attended Oxy from 1979 to 1981, then lit out after his sophomore year and never returned. It must be a tricky business for a college publicist, marketing your school as the place that one of the world’s most famous men couldn’t wait to get away from, but these are highly competitive times in the liberal arts college racket, and a flack will work with what he’s got. During my visit the campus was transforming itself into a three-dimensional tribute to its most famous dropout.
 
In the common room of the library a shrine of sorts had been set up in a glass display case, under the famous Shepard Fairey Hope poster. The display promised to document “Barack Obama’s Occidental College Days,” but the pickings were slim. Every item on display was derivative and indirect in its relation to the man being honored. There were photos of three of his professors, a copy each of his two memoirs, an invitation that someone had received to his inauguration, and an issue of Time magazine showing a recently discovered cache of posed pictures taken of Obama by a classmate in 1980. Obama’s Occidental years have the same waterbug quality that so many periods of his life seem to have in retrospect: You see a figure traveling lightly and swiftly over the surface of things, darting away before he could leave an impression that might last. Archivists have combed college records and come up empty, mostly. Barry Obama, as he then was known, published two poems in the campus literary magazine his sophomore year. The testimony of the handful of professors who remembered him, four by my count, is hazy. He was never mentioned in the student newspaper, never wrote a letter to the editor or appeared in a photo; he failed to have his picture taken for the yearbook, so his likeness isn’t there either. A photo from 1981 celebrating Oxy’s 94th anniversary was in the display case, labeled, with eager insouciance: “An all-campus photo .  .  . included students, faculty, staff, and administrators. Perhaps Obama is included?” We can hope.
 
I found my DVD, called “Barack Obama’s Occidental College Days,” in the student bookstore, where shelves groaned under stacks of Obama merchandise​—​paperweights, caps, pennants, T-shirts, pencils, shot glasses​—​in which the “O” from Obama was graphically entwined with the “O” from Occidental. (You work with what you’ve got.) The film, with a cover showing a rare photo of Obama on campus, lasts no more than 15 minutes and seems padded even so. Our host is a large and enthusiastic man named Huell Howser. He sports a Hawaiian shirt and a crewcut. With an Oxy flack as guide and a cameraman in tow, he strides the sun-drenched campus and pauses here and there as if simply overwhelmed.
 
“This place is full of history,” he says.
 
“There’s a lot of history to be marked here,” the flack agrees.
 
On the steps of the school administration building they are almost struck dumb. Almost.
 
“On this spot,” our host says, Obama may have given his first political speech​—​a two-minute blast at the college for investing in South Africa’s apartheid regime. But we can’t be sure.
 
“There are no photographs,” says Howser, “but then there are very few photographs of Barack Obama at Occidental.”
 
“That’s right,” the flack says glumly.
 
Howser’s passion burns undiminished. His every glance, this way and that, says, Isn’t this something? He finds a professor who taught Obama political science. The professor says he remembers Obama, but only because of his Afro hairstyle and his improbable name. A chinwag with a former dorm-mate from freshman year​—​Obama moved to an apartment several miles off campus his second year, removing himself even further from the school’s day-to-day life​—​isn’t much help either. Howser’s imperturbable smile shows no sign of desperation even when he collars the head of alumni affairs, who boasts that his alumni association is one of only 25 in the world that could claim attachment to a U.S. president.
 
The host is beside himself.
 
“Is that right? How involved has he been in the alumni association?”
 
“Well, I have to admit he hasn’t been to any alumni events .  .  . ”
 
“Has he been a big contributor?”
 
The man gives one of those nods that are more headshake than nod. “He​—​he is on our mailing list.”
 
“Uh huh!”
 
“We have big plans to ask Mr. Obama back to campus to speak.”
 
Howser beams. History has that effect on people.
 
And there we are. You can’t help but sympathize with our host, with the flack, with the curators at the college library. They faced a challenge known to anyone who tries to account for Barack Obama: How do you turn him into a man as interesting and significant as the world-historical figure that so many people, admirers and detractors alike, presume him to be? There’s not a lot of material here. Obama had an unusual though hardly Dickensian childhood complicated by divorce, and at age 33 he wrote an extremely good book about it, the memoir Dreams from My Father. He followed it with an uneventful and weirdly passive career in politics, and he wrote an extremely not-very-good book about it, The Audacity of Hope. Then, lacking any original ideas or platform to speak of, he ran as the first half-black, half-white candidate for president and, miraculously, won. It’s a boffo finish without any wind-up​—​teeth-shattering climax, but no foreplay.
 
There are two ways to aggrandize Obama, to inflate the reality so that it meets the expectation: through derogation or reverence. The facts warrant neither approach, but they don’t deter the Obama fabulists, two of whom have just published those brand-new books I mentioned.  
 
 
 
The Amateur, by a former New York Times magazine editor named Edward Klein, takes the first approach. Pure Obama-hatred was enough to shoot the book to the top of the Times bestseller list for the first three weeks after its release. Klein is best known as a Kennedy-watcher, author of such panting chronicles as All Too Human: The Love Story of Jack and Jackie Kennedy and Farewell, Jackie: A Portrait of Her Final Days; among the many info-bits he has tossed onto the sprawling slagheap of Kennedy lore is the news that Jackie lost her virginity in an elevator (the elevator was in Paris, where else). More recently Klein has honed his hatchet with books on Hillary Clinton and Katie Couric. Now The Amateur proves that he has mastered the techniques of such anti-Obama pioneers as Dinesh (The Roots of Obama’s Rage) D’Souza and David (The Great Destroyer) Limbaugh. He knows how to swing the sledgehammer prose, combine a leap of logic with a baseless inference, pad the paragraphs with secondary material plucked from magazine articles you’ve already read, and render the most mundane details in the most scandalized tones.
 
Sure, “Michelle now likes to pretend that she plays no part in personnel decisions or in formulating policy.” We’ve all heard that. And you believe it? “The facts tell quite a different story.” Facts are stubborn things! In truth, “Michelle’s aides meet regularly with the president’s senior communications team and select public events that will maximize and reinforce the Obamas’ joint message.” Wait. It gets worse. Klein has made a source of “one of Barack’s closest confidants.” And here’s what this confidant reveals: “Barack has always listened to what she has to say.” A direct quote, from source’s mouth to author’s ear. I wonder if they met in a darkened garage.
 
Klein has a problem with his sources​—​or rather, the reader should have a problem with Klein’s use of his sources, whoever they are. Blind quotes appear on nearly every page; there are blind quotes within blind quotes. The book cost him a year to research and write, he says proudly​—​“an exhilarating experience that took me to more than a half-dozen cities, either in person or by telephone or email.” (I visited several cities by email just this morning.) And it’s clear that all this dialing, emailing, dialing, emailing, bore little fruit. “I was at a dinner where Valerie [Jarrett] sat at our table for nearly 10 minutes,” another anonymous source divulges. “And I wasn’t particularly impressed.” Now it can be told. The book’s big revelation comes from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He claims, in an on-the-record interview with Klein, that in 2008 an unnamed friend of an unnamed friend of Obama sent Wright an email offering him $150,000 “not to preach at all until the November presidential election.” Republicans may seethe, but it’s odd that they would suddenly take the word of Jeremiah Wright, a publicity-seeking narcissist who says AIDS was invented by the government.
 
With such thin material, the only way to keep a book like The Amateur chugging along is with gallons of high-octane contempt. Yet because Klein provides so little to provoke fresh outrage​—​or to support the theme that Obama is “something new in American politics,” a historically unprecedented threat to the Republic​—​readers will have to come to the book well-stocked with outrage of their own. They will be satisfied with sentences that begin with an appeal to phony-baloney authority (“According to those who know him best”) and continue with assertions that no Obama intimate would make to Edward Klein, on or off the record: “inept in the arts of management .  .  . make our economy less robust and our nation less safe .  .  .” and so on. And they’ll admire his ability to fit his theme of Obama’s villainy to any set of facts. After his election, for example, Obama didn’t take a wise man’s advice to disregard his old Chicago friends​—​a sign of Obama’s weakness and amateurism, Klein says. A few pages later Obama and Valerie Jarrett are accused of ignoring their old Chicago friends​—​a sign of coldness and amateurism. Klein gets him  coming and going.
 
If Klein makes Obama something he’s not by hating him more than he should, David Maraniss, a reporter for the Washington Post and a biographer of Bill Clinton and Vince Lombardi, takes the opposite approach. Klein is an Obama despiser, Maraniss is a big fan​—​big fan. Klein assumes the worst of his subject at every turn, Maraniss gives Obama every benefit of the doubt, sometimes with heroic effort. Klein writes hastily and crudely, Maraniss writes with great care, veering now and then into those pastures of purple prose that Obama frequently trod in his own memoir. Klein’s book aims for a limited but sizable audience of readers who already despise Obama as much as he does, and therefore don’t require footnotes or any other apparatus of verification; Maraniss, with 30 pages of notes, has grander ambitions to satisfy anyone curious about Obama’s upbringing and family life. Klein’s book is a squalid little thing, Maraniss’s is not.
 
It is not, however, the book that Obama lovers will hope for​—​maybe not the book that Maraniss thinks it is. Prepublication, his splashiest piece of news has been the extent of the future president’s love for, and consumption of, marijuana. Through high school​—​he apparently lost the taste for pot sometime in college​—​Obama’s ardor reached Cheech and Chong levels. His circle of dopers called themselves the “Choom Gang,” after a Hawaiian word for inhaling pot, and the phrase is already threatening to enter the common language, ironically or otherwise. (I Googled it today and got 560,000 hits, pardon the expression.)
 
Obama politically indemnified himself against charges of youthful drug use by admitting them in his memoir, though he was smart enough to avoid the words “Choom Gang.” Even at 33, when he wrote his book, he had his eye on a political landscape that would require acknowledgment if not full disclosure of youthful “experimentation,” as the charming euphemism went. In Dreams, he treats the drug use as another symptom of his singular youthful confusion. Maraniss’s explanation is less complicated: Obama really, really liked to get high. Maraniss offers similarly unblinkered portraits of Obama’s appalling father, a vain, wife-beating bigamist and drunk, and of Obama’s maternal grandfather, who comes off in Dreams as a latter-day Micawber, innocent and luckless. Maraniss hints at a darker, even slightly menacing figure. And he discovers some sharp edges beneath the flowing muumuu of Obama’s mother, more often depicted as an idealistic flower-child-turned-scholar (or, in the Klein-reading camp, a Communist agitator).
 
Maraniss’s book is most interesting for the light it casts on Obama’s self-invention, which is of course the theme of Dreams from My Father: a sensitive and self-aware young man’s zig-zagging search for a personal identity in a world barely held together by fraying family ties, without a cultural inheritance, confused and tormented by the subject of race. Dreams is a cascade of epiphanies, touched off one by one in high school, at Oxy, in New York and Chicago, and, at book’s end, before his father’s grave in Africa. Years before Obama haters could inflate him into an America-destroying devil or Obama worshippers spied those rolling swells of greatness that have yet to surface, Barack Obama was carefully fashioning from his own life something grander than what was there. He was the first Obama fabulist.
 
Obama himself drops hints of this in Dreams. He writes in his introduction that the dialogue in the book is only an “approximation” of real conversations. Some of the characters, “for the sake of compression,” are “composites”; the names of others have been changed. All of this is offered to the reader as acceptable literary license, and it is, certainly by the standards of the early 1990s, back in the day when publishers flooded bookstores with memoirs of angst-ridden youth and there were still bookstores to flood. Yet the epiphany-per-page ratio in Obama’s memoir is very high. The book derives its power from the reader’s understanding that the events described were factual at least in the essentials. Maraniss demonstrates something else: The writer who would later use the power of his life story to become a plausible public man was making it up, to an alarming extent.
 
At least it should be alarming to admirers of Dreams. Early on Obama signals that his book will be more self-aware, more detached and ironical, than most youthful memoirs, especially those involving the humid subject of race. Thus we meet Ray, a classmate at Punahou School in Hawaii. Ray is black and radicalized, and given to racially charged rants about “white folks,” a term the narrator comes to despise.
 
 “Sometimes, after one of his performances,” Obama writes, “I would question his judgment, if not his sincerity. We weren’t living in the Jim Crow South, I would remind him. We weren’t consigned to some heatless housing project in Harlem or the Bronx. We were in goddamned Hawaii.”
 
Still Ray’s rants continue, and Obama continues to listen. Ray complains the football coach won’t start him, despite his superior skill, because he’s black; Obama is clearly being passed up by the basketball coach on account of his race, too. The white girls refuse to go out with them​—​for the same reason.
 
“Tell me we wouldn’t be treated different if we was white. Or Japanese.”
 
Racial resentment is the key to Ray. In Maraniss’s words, he’s “a symbol of young blackness, a mix of hot anger and cool detachment,” racially authentic in a way none of Obama’s other friends were. He provides a crucial example of the resentment that Obama is tempted by but at last outgrows.
 
But Ray wasn’t really there​—​didn’t exist, in fact. Ray is a “reinvention” of one of Obama’s friends, Maraniss tells us. His mother was half-black and half-American Indian; his father was .  .  . Japanese. His name was Keith Kakugawa, and he had no trouble dating white girls; his girlfriend at the time was the base admiral’s daughter. Maraniss discovered that Obama’s luck with girls, whatever their melanin count, was just as robust as Keith’s. With a Japanese name, Kakugawa would have trouble​—​more trouble than half-black Barry Obama​—​identifying himself as an African American and speaking as one. If Kakugawa was Ray, then the rants and the attitudes they represent are in this instance made up, and the story line of Dreams​—​the story of Obama’s life as we have learned it​—​loses an essential foil.
 
“Somewhere between pseudonymous and fictitious,” Maraniss writes, gently as always, “Ray was the first of several distorted or composite characters employed in Dreams for similar purposes.” But it’s the purposes themselves that are worrisome. Maraniss cuts Obama much more slack than he would, say, if he were an editor at the Washington Post magazine fact-checking a memoir he hoped to publish. He’s right to accept some invention from a memoirist who insists on telling his story through precise rendering of scenes and dialogue. But a memoir is just realist fiction unless the “composite” says and does things that were done and said by someone. In Dreams many of the crucial epiphanies, the moments that advance the narrator’s life and understanding to its closing semi-resolution, didn’t happen.
 
That first year at Oxy, Obama writes, he was “living one long lie,” crippled by self-consciousness and insecurity. (Many freshmen have known the feeling.) But then Barry Obama meets Regina.
 
“Regina .  .  . made me feel like I didn’t have to lie,” he writes. The two are introduced by a mutual friend, Marcus, in the campus coffee shop. She asks him about the name Barry​—​and becomes, in a liberating moment, one of the first to call him by his given name, Barack. More important, “she told me about her childhood in Chicago.” It was an authentic black American experience, he learns: “the absent father and struggling mother,” the rundown six-flat on the South Side, along with the compensations of an extended family​—​“uncles and cousins and grandparents, the stew of voices bubbling up in laughter.”
 
“Her voice evoked a vision of black life in all its possibility, a vision that filled me with longing​—​a longing for place, and a fixed and definite history.”
 
The afternoon with Regina transforms Barack. “Strange how a single conversation can change you,” he writes, setting up the ol’ epiphany.
 
“I had felt my voice returning to me that afternoon with Regina .  .  . [and] entering sophomore year I could feel it growing stronger, sturdier, that constant, honest portion of myself, a bridge between my future and my past.”
 
And the rest is history.
 
Except .  .  . there is layer upon layer of confusion here. When Maraniss inquired, Obama’s closest black friend at Occidental couldn’t recognize any real-life counterparts to the characters of Regina and Marcus, and in fact neither of them existed. Regina, Maraniss thinks, was the combination of a wealthy white girl (there were lots of them at Oxy, then and now, none overly familiar with the authentic black American experience) and a female black upperclassman who grew up middle class. Which part of Regina belonged to which real person isn’t mentioned and probably not discoverable. But that crucial background that Regina recounts to the narrator​—​the upbringing that inspired Obama to discover his voice and set in motion a train of events that led him to leave Occidental and the West for New York City and Columbia University​—​belonged to neither of Obama’s friends. The background, Maraniss says, may have been drawn from Michelle Robinson (later Obama), whom Obama would not meet for another 10 years. It’s like an epiphany in a time warp. And even then the facts are obscured: Michelle’s father never left his family, as Regina’s did.
 
Going back to Dreams after several years, and after reading Maraniss’s impressive book, you can get a bad case of the jumps. Take this spat between Regina and Barry, occurring the evening after his big antiapartheid speech, given on those steps that years later would wow Huell Howser:
 

    Regina came up to me and offered her congratulations. I asked her what for.
 
“For that wonderful speech you gave.”
 
.  .  . “It was short anyway.”
 
Regina continues:
 
 
 

“That’s what made it so effective. .  .  . You spoke from the heart, Barack. It made people want to hear more. .  .  .”
 
“Listen, Regina,” I said, cutting her off, “you are a very sweet lady. And I’m happy you enjoyed my little performance today. But that’s the last time you will ever hear another speech out of me. .  .  . I’m going to leave the preaching to you.” .  .  .
 
“And why is that?”
 
I sipped my beer, my eyes wandering over the dancers in front of us.
 
“Because I’ve got nothing to say, Regina .  .  .”
 
 
 
Knowing what we know now​—​that this intelligent, socially aware, fatherless girl from the South Side didn’t exist, by whatever name​—​we can only hope that there was some “very sweet lady” at Occidental who actually did flatter Barack Obama in this way, at that moment. If it’s pure invention it reads like a testy exchange between Norman Bates and his mother.
 
What’s dispiriting is that throughout Dreams, the moments that Obama has invented are precisely the occasions of his epiphanies​—​precisely those periodic aha! moments that carry the book and bring its author closer to self-discovery. Without them not much is left: a lot of lovely writing, some unoriginal social observations, a handful of precocious literary turns. Obama wasn’t just inventing himself; he was inventing himself inventing himself. It made for a story, anyway.
 
We can see the dilemma he faced. Obama signed a contract to write a racial memoir. They were all the rage in those days, but in fact their moment had passed. Even with the distant father and absent mother, the schooling in Indonesia and the remote stepfather, Obama lived a life of relative ease. He moved, however uncomfortably, into one elite institution after another, protected by civil rights laws, surrounded by a popular culture in which the African-American experience has embedded itself ineradicably. As Obama’s best biographer, David Remnick, observed, this wasn’t the stuff of Manchild in the Promised Land; you couldn’t use it to make the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass or the Auto-biography of Malcolm X. So Obama moved the drama inside himself, and said he’d found there an experience both singular and universal, and he brought nonexistent friends like Regina and Ray to goose the story along.
 
He did in effect what so many of us have done with him. He created a fable about an Obama far bigger and more consequential than the unremarkable man at its center. He joins us, haters and idolaters, as we join Huell Howser, looking this way and that, desperately trying to see what isn’t there. Isn’t that something?
 

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.  A graduate of Occidental College, he reviewed Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope in our February 12, 2007, issue.


Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/self-made-man_646858.html


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
O invents own legend
By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last Updated: 4:27 AM, June 17, 2012

Posted: 12:19 AM, June 17, 2012

Watching President Obama flop around like a fish out of water, careening from gaffe to desperation to dishonesty, I find myself searching for ways to put his troubling behavior into historic perspective.

Is this The Unmaking of a President? Or is it The Unmasking? Perhaps we are witnessing an American Tragedy. Or maybe we’re seeing final proof his election was The Great Mistake.

All those fit the facts, and lead to a shared conclusion. So far, the 2012 election has almost nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Even the GOP doesn’t love its choice, but the race is a dead heat because Obama is so disappointing.

His fall from grace does more than merely confirm the conventional wisdom that elections are a referendum on the incumbent. Notwithstanding White House efforts to make the race about something or someone else, Obama remains the straw that stirs the drink.

But what a strange straw he is. Far stranger than we knew.

The man who campaigned against the “torture” of war prisoners boasts of killing suspects while taking no prisoners. He called rising debts “un-American” before setting a new record for borrowing. He railed against the imperial presidency before stretching it beyond recognition. The former law-school instructor tried to bully the Supreme Court.

Just who is Barack Obama? The question lingers like an itch that can’t be scratched.

A partial answer, the flattering part, was provided by his history-making 2008 victory. But his failure to unite the country and lack of interest in the actual work of governing provide an alternative view. More recently, with the world spinning out of control and the economy stuck in slow speed, he looks dangerously reckless.

And now comes more unsettling information, thanks to a new biography by David Maraniss, a Washington Post writer and editor.

Earlier excerpts of “Barack Obama, The Story,” made headlines, with one showing Obama as a total pothead and another revealing that a key scene in one of Obama’s own books involved a composite character.

That was just the start. An early review of the full book suggests it will shatter much of what we thought we knew about him. It seems Obama’s memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” is chock full of characters he created to fit his narrative. Not once or twice, but virtually every time he wanted to explain breakthroughs in his celebrated search for identity.

“Throughout ‘Dreams,’ the moments that Obama has invented are precisely the occasions of his epiphanies — precisely those periodic aha! moments that carry the book,” Andrew Ferguson writes in his Weekly Standard review. “Obama wasn’t just inventing himself; he was inventing himself inventing himself.”

Without the fabrication, “not much is left,” Ferguson says. Obama’s memoir thus turns out to be a hologram of his life instead of the real thing.

Not incidentally, character invention is a trick Obama still uses. The straw men opponents he sets up in virtually every speech are the political equivalent of the technique he used in “Dreams.”

In both cases, we end up with fictional stand-ins for Obama and others. You have to wonder if he even knows the difference anymore between truth and fiction.

Still, his trick has worked political magic because, Ferguson writes, Obama “did in effect what so many of us have done with him. He created a fable about an Obama far bigger and more consequential than the unremarkable man at its center. He joins us, haters and idolaters . . . looking this way and that, desperately trying to see what isn’t there.”

The book confirms again that the mainstream media failed miserably to vet Obama four years ago. But here we are, and now what?

In a speech last week, Obama was in straw-man/fiction mode in trying to shift the focus from his record. Voters have a choice, he declared, between “two fundamentally different views of which direction America should take.”

Leaving aside the snide reviews — a rehash, too long, too lecturing — the speech fell short in a basic way. In outlining this “choice,” Obama neglected the first question voters face.

Who is Barack Obama?



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/invents_own_legend_R8P1Yi1RX5jxywOCAJICoL#ixzz1y5VsGNpS

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

Frances Fox Piven

Frances Fox Piven, co-architect of a strategy to overload the U.S. welfare system to precipitate a transformative economic crisis, was an early builder of the socialist-leaning New Party.

Scores of other New Party activists, meanwhile, have been tied to President Obama.

The now-defunct controversial third party is coming under increased scrutiny after new information further indicates Obama was a New Party member.

The New Party sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

In 2008, Obama’s campaign denied the president was ever a member amid reports, including from WND, citing the New Party’s own literature listing Obama as a member.

Last week, researcher and author Stanley Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported on documentation from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society that “definitively establishes” that Obama was a member of the New Party.

Kurtz reported Obama also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

A July 20, 1992, article in The Nation magazine by New Party founder Joel Rogers, meanwhile, lays out the case for the establishment of the party and lists several of the group’s early founders and activists.

In that article, titled “Out with the Old Politics, in with the New Party,” Rogers cites Piven as an early activist in the formation of the New Party, which he describes as a “social democratic” party.

Piven, together with her late husband, activist and fellow Columbia professor Richard Cloward, developed the Cloward-Piven strategy, which called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system.

The duo’s stated goal was to agitate a financial crisis that would collapse the U.S economy and replace it with a national system with “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.”

Other early New Party activists listed by Rogers have ties to Obama. Those activists and others were also listed as New Party “builders” in the party’ newsletter, the New Party News.

Some of the key New Party activists with Obama ties include:

Madeline Talbott, listed as national field director of ACORN. Talbott is a former colleague of Obama’s from his 1990s Project Vote! Chicago Coalition, which worked directly with ACORN when Talbott was ACORN’s lead Illinois organizer. She has also written about working with Obama as a fellow Chicago community organizer in the 1990s. Obama himself has linked his work on Project Vote to Talbott’s Illinois ACORN. When he sought the endorsement of ACORN for his 2008 presidential bid, Obama said, “When I ran Project Vote, the voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it.”
Manning Marable, a socialist Columbia University professor. Marable in 1998 helped found the Black Radical Congress, where he worked with controversial race scholar Cornel West, an Obama friend and 2008 campaign adviser who introduced the politician at his first campaign stop in Harlem.WND disclosedthat during that 2007 introduction, West first railed on stage against the “racist” U.S. criminal justice system of the “American empire.”In 2007, Marable was elected chairman of Movement for a Democratic Society, or MDS, an arm of the radical Students for a Democratic Society from which the Weather Underground terrorist organization later splintered. Some Weathermen terrorists, including Bill Ayers, participated in Marable’s MDS.
Marxist activist Carl Davidson. Davidson later co-founded Chicagoans Against the War in Iraq, the group that invited Obama to speak at its Oct. 2, 2002, anti-war rally in Chicago – an address that was said to propel Obama to national attention.
Quentin Young, key organizer of the Physicians for a National Health Program. Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of Bill Ayers that was said to have launched Obama’s political career. He was an adviser to Obama in the late 1990s. Young himself took credit in March 2009 in an interview with the Democracy Now network for “turning Barack Obama into a ‘single payer’ advocate when the president was an Illinois state senator.”
Socialist goals

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”

Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.

Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.

WND first reported on the event in 2010.

Obama listed as New Party member

In 2009, WND reported on newspaper evidence from the New Party’s own literature listing several new members of the New Party, including Obama.

Last week, Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”

Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
The Real Story Of Barack Obama

A new biography finally challenges Obama's famous memoir. And the truth might not be quite as interesting as the president, and his enemies, have imagined.

Posted Jun 17, 2012 12:19am EDT


http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/the-real-story-of-barack-obama



David Maraniss’s new biography of Barack Obama is the first sustained challenge to Obama’s control over his own story, a firm and occasionally brutal debunking of Obama’s bestselling 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father.

Maraniss’s Barack Obama: The Story punctures two sets of falsehoods: The family tales Obama passed on, unknowing; and the stories Obama made up. The 672-page book closes before Obama enters law school, and Maraniss has promised another volume, but by its conclusion I counted 38 instances in which the biographer convincingly disputes significant elements of Obama’s own story of his life and his family history.

The two strands of falsehood run together, in that they often serve the same narrative goal: To tell a familiar, simple, and ultimately optimistic story about race and identity in the 20th Century. The false notes in Obama’s family lore include his mother’s claimed experience of racism in Kansas, and incidents of colonial brutality toward his Kenyan grandfather and Indonesian step-grandfather. Obama’s deliberate distortions more clearly serve a single narrative: Race. Obama presents himself through the book as “blacker and more disaffected” than he really was, Maraniss writes, and the narrative “accentuates characters drawn from black acquaintances who played lesser roles his real life but could be used to advance a line of thought, while leaving out or distorting the actions of friends who happened to be white.”

That the core narrative of Dreams could have survived this long into Obama’s public life is the product in part of an inadvertent conspiracy between the president and his enemies. His memoir evokes an angry, misspent youth; a deep and lifelong obsession with race; foreign and strongly Muslim heritage; and roots in the 20th Century’s self-consciously leftist anti-colonial struggle. Obama’s conservative critics have, since the beginnings of his time on the national scene, taken the self-portrait at face value, and sought to deepen it to portray him as a leftist and a foreigner.

Reporters who have sought to chase some of the memoir’s tantalizing yarns have, however, long suspected that Obama might not be as interesting as his fictional doppelganger. “Mr. Obama’s account of his younger self and drugs…significantly differs from the recollections of others who do not recall his drug use,” the New York Times’s Serge Kovaleski reported dryly in February of 2008, speculating that Obama had “added some writerly touches in his memoir to make the challenges he overcame seem more dramatic.” (In one of the stranger entries in the annals of political spin, Obama’s spokesman defended his boss’s claim to have sampled cocaine, calling the book “candid.”)

Maraniss’s deep and entertaining biography will serve as a corrective both to Obama’s mythmaking and his enemies’. Maraniss finds that Obama’s young life was basically conventional, his personal struggles prosaic and later exaggerated. He finds that race, central to Obama’s later thought and included in the subtitle of his memoir, wasn’t a central factor in his Hawaii youth or the existential struggles of his young adulthood. And he concludes that attempts, which Obama encouraged in his memoir, to view him through the prism of race “can lead to a misinterpretation” of the sense of “outsiderness” that Maraniss puts at the core of Obama’s identity and ambition.

Maraniss opens with a warning: Among the falsehoods in Dreams is the caveat in the preface that “for the sake of compression, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I’ve known, and some events appear out of precise chronology.”

“The character creations and rearrangements of the book are not merely a matter of style, devices of compression, but are also substantive,” Maraniss responds in his own introduction. The book belongs in the category of “literature and memoir, not history and autobiography,” he writes, and “the themes of the book control character and chronology.”

Maraniss, a veteran Washington Post reporter whose biography of Bill Clinton, First in His Class, helped explain one complicated president to America, dove deep and missed deadlines for this biography. And the book’s many fact-checks are rich and, at times, comical.

In Dreams, for instance, Obama writes of a friend named “Regina,” is a symbol of the authentic African-American experience that Obama hungers for (and which he would later find in Michelle Robinson). Maraniss discovers, however, that Regina was based on a student leader at Occidental College, Caroline Boss, who was white. Regina was the name of her working-class Swiss grandmother, who also seems to make a cameo in Dreams.

Maraniss also notices that Obama also entirely cut two white roommates, in Los Angeles and New York, from the narrative, and projected a racial incident onto New York girlfriend that he later told Maraniss had happened in Chicago.

Some of Maraniss’s most surprising debunking, though, comes in the area of family lore, where he disputes a long string of stories on three continents, though perhaps no more than most of us have picked up from garrulous grandparents and great uncles. And his corrections are, at times, a bit harsh.

Obama grandfather “Stanley [Dunham]'s two defining stories were that he found his mother after her suicide and that he punched his principal and got expelled from El Dorado High. That second story seems to be in the same fictitious realm as the first,” Maraniss writes. As for Dunham’s tale of a 1935 car ride with Herbert Hoover, it’s a “preposterous…fabrication.”

As for a legacy of racism in his mother’s Kansas childhood, “Stanley was a teller of tales, and it appears that his grandson got these stories mostly from him,” Maraniss writes.

Across the ocean, the family story that Hussein Onyango, Obama’s paternal grandfather, had been whipped and tortured by the British is “unlikely”: “five people who had close connections to Hussein Onyango said they doubted the story or were certain that it did not happen,” Maraniss writes. The memory that the father of his Indonesian stepfather, Soewarno Martodihardjo, was killed by Dutch soldiers in the fight for independence is “a concocted myth in almost all respects.” In fact, Martodihardjo “fell off a chair at his home while trying to hang drapes, presumable suffering a heart attack.”

Most families exaggerate ancestors’ deeds. A more difficult category of correction comes in Maraniss’s treatment of Obama’s father and namesake. Barack Obama Sr., in this telling, quickly sheds whatever sympathy his intelligence and squandered promise should carry. He’s the son of a man, one relative told Maraniss, who is required to pay an extra dowry for one wife “because he was a bad person.”

He was also a domestic abuser.

“His father Hussein Onyango, was a man who hit women, and it turned out that Obama was no different,” Maraniss writes. "I thought he would kill me," one ex-wife tells him; he also gave her sexually-transmitted diseases from extramarital relationships.

It’s in that context that Maraniss corrects a central element of Obama’s own biography, debunking a story that Obama’s mother may well have invented: That she and her son were abandoned in Hawaii in 1963.

“It was his mother who left Hawaii first, a year earlier than his father,” Maraniss writes, confirming a story that had first surfaced in the conservative blogosphere. He suggests that “spousal abuse” prompted her flight back to Seattle.

Obama’s own fairy-tales, meanwhile, run toward Amercan racial cliché. “Ray,” who is in the book “a symbol of young blackness,” is based on a character whose complex racial identity — half Japanese, part native American, and part black — was more like Obama’s, and who wasn’t a close friend.

“In the memoir Barry and Ray, could be heard complaining about how rich white haole girls would never date them,” Maraniss writes, referring to Hawaii’s upper class, and to a composite character whose blackness is. “In fact, neither had much trouble in that regard.”

As Obama’s Chicago mentor Jerry Kellman tells Maraniss in a different context, “Everything didn't revolve around race.”

Those are just a few examples in biography whose insistence on accuracy will not be mistaken for pedantry. Maraniss is a master storyteller, and his interest in revising Obama’s history is in part an interest in why and how stories are told, a theme that recurs in the memoir. Obama himself, he notes, saw affectionately through his grandfather Stanley’s fabulizing,” describing the older man’s tendency to rewrite “history to conform with the image he wished for himself." Indeed, Obama comes from a long line of storytellers, and at times fabulists, on both sides.

Dick Opar, a distant Obama relative who served as a senior Kenyan police official, and who was among the sources dismissing legends of anti-colonial heroism, put it more bluntly.

“People make up stories,” he told Maraniss.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

 
I read the lead in the review of David Maraniss's much discussed new book, Barack Obama, the Story, by Ben Smith of Buzzfeed of with at least one eyebrow arched.
"David Maraniss's new biography of Barack Obama is the first sustained challenge to Obama's control over his own story," writes Smith, "a firm and occasionally brutal debunking of Obama's bestselling 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father." 
Although those of us in the blogosphere lack Maraniss's resources and access to friendly witnesses, we have been debunking Obama's Dreams for the last four years.  As I note in the introduction of my 2011 book, Deconstructing Obama, "In unlocking [Obama's] past, I have discovered that the story that Obama has been telling all his life varies from the true story in ways big and small."  
Maraniss documents those variations better than I ever could have.  "I counted 38 instances in which the biographer convincingly disputes significant elements of Obama's own story of his life and his family history," writes Smith.  According to Maraniss, and this comes as a revelation to Smith, Obama falsified his bio largely to portray himself as "blacker and more disaffected" than he really was. 
What is missing from the Maraniss book, however, is any real understanding of how Obama came to do this.  A little background is in order here. It just so happened that Barack Obama was not the only black icon in his neighborhood to write a best-selling memoir.  Boxing great Muhammad Ali produced one long before Obama, and he too with more than a little assistance.  In Ali's case, that assistance has been well documented by black scholar Gerald Early. 
According to Early, the Nation of Islam oversaw the entire production of The Greatest: My Own Story.  The NOI newspaper's Marxist editor, Richard Durham, taped any number of conversations with the nearly illiterate Ali or between Ali and others and then gave them to an "editor" for writing.  That editor was a young Toni Morrison.  Ali's is surely the only boxing autobiography ghosted by a future Nobel Prize winner.  NOI honcho Elijah Muhammad's son Herbert reviewed every page.  As you might expect, Ali's Muslim helpmates rendered his story poorer, tougher, and blacker than the truth would bear.  I relate this tale of literary gamesmanship in my own book, Sucker Punch.
As I came to believe early on, whoever guided Obama steered him towards a grievance narrative like Ali's, if not quite as obvious or extravagant. Even on my first reading in July 2008, I could see that Obama's muse proved particularly eloquent on the subject of the angry black male. 
Phrases like "full of inarticulate resentments," "knotted, howling assertion of self," "unruly maleness," "unadorned insistence on respect" and "withdrawal into a smaller and smaller coil of rage" lace the book.  Yet in the several spontaneous interviews Obama had given on the subject of race, I had not seen a glimpse of this eloquence or of this anger.
The evidence eventually led me towards an odd conclusion: The man who lent Obama his voice on the subject of blackness gave all appearances of being white.  The more I researched Bill Ayers' background, the less unlikely this seemed.  Skin color aside, Ayers and Obama had much in common.  Both grew up in comfortable white households, attended idyllic, largely white prep schools, and have struggled to find an identity as righteous black men ever since.
"I also thought I was black," writes Ayers only half-jokingly in his 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. He read all the authors Obama did -- James Baldwin, Leroi Jones, Richard Wright, Malcolm X.  As proof of his righteousness, Ayers named his first son "Malik" after the newly Islamic Malcolm X and the second son "Zayd" after Zayd Shakur, a Black Panther killed in a shootout that claimed the life of a New Jersey State Trooper.  Just as Obama resisted "the pure and heady breeze of privilege" to which he was exposed as a child, Ayers too resisted "white skin privilege" or at least tried to.
Tellingly, Ayers, like Obama, began his career as a self-described "community organizer," Ayers in inner-city Cleveland, Obama in inner-city Chicago.  In Chicago, Ayers also found a strategic ally in Jeremiah Wright, a man he called a "distinguished theologian and major intellectual," meaning that Wright too spelled "Amerikkka" with three Ks. In short, Ayers was fully capable of crawling inside Obama's head and relating in superior prose what Obama calls, only half-ironically, a "rage at the white world [that] needed no object."
In Fugitive Days, "rage" rules. Ayers tells of how his "rage got started" and how it evolved into an "uncontrollable rage -- fierce frenzy of fire and lava."  In fact, both Ayers and Obama speak of "rage" the way that Eskimos do of snow -- in so many varieties, so often, that they feel the need to qualify it, as Obama does when he speaks of "impressive rage," "suppressed rage" or "coil of rage."
This rage leads Ayers to a sentiment with which Obama was altogether familiar.  Ayers writes, "I felt the warrior rising up inside of me -- audacity and courage, righteousness, of course, and more audacity."  Ayers had likely pulled the concept of "audacity" from the same source Jeremiah Wright did, Martin Luther King.  Something apparently got lost in translation.
Ayers may have outgrown his affection for violence by the time he and Obama hooked up, but his attraction to radical politics smoldered on.  Like so many on the hard left, he supported those politics with whatever historical invention he could get away with. "If there is no God," said Jean Paul Sartre in his famous paraphrase of Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov, "everything is permitted."  Ayers admits as much. "The old gods failed and the old truths left the world."  Ayers observes. "Clear conclusions were mainly delusional, a luxury of religious fanatics and fools."
The respective memoirs of Ayers and Obama follow the kind of rules one would expect from someone indifferent to truth. Ayers describes his as "a memory book," one that deliberately blurs facts and changes identities and makes no claims at history.  Obama says much the same. In Dreams, some characters are composites. Names have been changed. Events occur out of precise chronology 
Like Maraniss, Obama-friendly biographer David Remnick

cuts Obama a lot of his slack for his many twists of the truth.  What makes Dreams "exceptional," he observes, is "not that Obama allows himself these freedoms, but, rather, that he cops to them right away."  Not that exceptional.  Ayers copped to these freedoms right away too.   He asks of his own memoir, "Is this then the truth?"  He answers, "Not exactly. Although it feels entirely honest to me." 

Maraniss's book promises to be the first of two volumes.  For all of his good work to date, until he can bring himself to address the obvious question of authorship, he will be casting only the dimmest light on history's greatest presidential mystery.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Classmate: Obama Sr. Was Soviet Symp ('Viewed communism as a savior')
 The Washington Free Beacon ^ | June 19, 2012 | Washington Free Beacon Staff


Posted on Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:46:47 AM by Kaslin

A former classmate of President Barack Obama’s father claims that as a student, the Presidential sire viewed the Soviet Union as a “liberating force.”

The recollections of Naranhkiri Tith are published in Barack Obama: The Story, a new biography by Washington Post reporter David Maraniss released today.

Tith, the son of a former Cambodian Prime Minister, was a close friend of Barack Obama Sr. in the early 1960s, when as classmates the two carried on what Maraniss describes as “a debating road show on communism.”

Tith tells Maraniss, “I never was a rightist person, but I definitely did not believe in any kind of too-strong propaganda, so that saved me from the communist movement.” Maraniss goes on:


On the other hand, BARE-ick, as he called Obama, seemed taken by the anticolonialist stance of the Soviet Bloc and ‘saw it as a liberating force.’

Tith tells Maraniss he does not “think [Obama Sr.] ever belonged to the Communist Party, but he definitely had a hopeful view of communism….And we shouldn’t forget that he was a minority Luo in Kenya, so he felt a double fight, also with the Kikuyu. It was double jeopardy for him. In any case he felt oppressed twice over.”

President Obama’s father was born in Kenya.

Tith explains Obama’s communist sympathies as a product of the continued British colonization of Kenya. Because Cambodia had achieved independence a decade earlier in 1953, Tith says he “did not feel that kind of pressing issue [Obama Sr.] still felt.”

“So therefore [Obama Sr.] viewed communism as a savor,” Tith tells Maraniss, “whereas my view of communism was totally the opposite of what his was.”

http://freebeacon.com/classmate-obama-sr-was-soviet-symp






WTF! 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/biographer-admits-there-was-no-obama-family/


FORGERY-GATE
BIOGRAPHER ADMITS: THERE WAS NO OBAMA FAMILY
Exclusive: Jack Cashill notes Maraniss book puts lie to O's 'improbable love' claim
Published: 2 hours ago
by JACK CASHILL Email | Archive
Jack Cashill is an Emmy-award winning independent writer and producer with a Ph.D. in American Studies from Purdue. His latest book is the blockbuster "Deconstructing Obama."
In all the talk about David Maraniss’ new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,” the chattering classes seem to have overlooked the most significant of Maraniss’ revelations, namely that the story on which Obama based his 2008 candidacy is “received myth, not the truth.”

“My parents shared not only an improbable love,” said Obama famously in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote, “they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation.” This concept of multicultural romance shaped his persona and his campaigns.

At the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Obama leaped into the story in the very first sentence. “Four years ago,” he began, “I stood before you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.”

As Maraniss concedes, these two young people shared very close to nothing. “In the college life of Barack Obama in 1961 and 1962,” writes Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu, there was no Ann; there was no baby.”

Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.

One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama “very well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”

Only Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie claims to have seen the pair together during the presumed courtship stage, but he is not close to credible.

“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los Angeles Times in December 2010, “that could look you right in the eye right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’” This was pure lie, no other word for it.

A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the Associated Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their newborn son at the hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a child with his parents at social events.” Another lie.

Maraniss should have quoted Abercrombie with the stated qualifier that he has proved unreliable on all things Obama, but he did not. Abercrombie was too important. Without Abercrombie, there is no contemporary witness to any kind of relationship. Maraniss, however, knew enough not to quote Abercrombie on his claim to having seen the baby with his parents.

Despite his Herculean digging into the dung of Obama’s life, Maraniss’ shovel comes up empty on the couple’s alleged February 1961 wedding. He footnotes his comments thusly: “Marriage facts recorded in divorce records.”

There is no doubt that both Ann Dunham and Obama claimed a wedding. It suited both their purposes, Obama to extend his visa and Dunham to legitimize her baby with a black husband.

As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep her future husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the country. The INS believed her to be married to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.

Like all other biographers of either Obama or his parents, Maraniss is totally silent on Dunham’s whereabouts from the February marriage to the August birth. He adds one detail, however, that deepens the mystery.

According to the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements, the young family lived at 6085 Kalanianole Highway where Dunham’s parents lived. Obama Sr. clarified to the INS that mother and baby lived there without him.

Maraniss definitively states that “[Dunham] and Obama and the infant never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].” There was no room. The senior Dunhams shared the house with the Pratt family. The Pratt daughter “has no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.”

And yes, finally, an Obama biographer admits what the blogosphere has known for the last four years: “Within a month of the day Barry came home from the hospital, he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu, back on the mainland. …”

“This period, Washington State revisited,” Maraniss writes, “is missing from the memoir the son would write decades later.” In fact, as recently as Father’s Day 2012, Obama was claiming that his father left home when he was 2.

What Maraniss does not say is that he missed the Seattle hegira story himself in the 10,000-word Washington Post article he wrote on the eve of the 2008 election.

He was hardly unique. No one in the mainstream media wanted to blow the whistle on the fraudulent family fable that got Obama elected president.

The New Yorker’s David Remnick chose to overlook it in his 2010 Obama bio. The New York Times’ Janny Scott overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s mother. The Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs overlooked it in her 2011 bio of Obama’s father, and the Times’s Jodi Kantor overlooked it in her 2012 book on the whole extended family.

Worse, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza chose not to report the fraud in his disingenuous best-seller, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As D’Souza explains, Obama was “his father’s son.” Dunham served largely as the vehicle through which the absent Obama exercised his will on the young Obama, she being “Obama Sr.’s first convert” to anti-colonialism.

D’Souza should have known this was nonsense. Conservative writer Michael Patrick Leahy had broken the Seattle story as early as 2008 in his book, “What Does Barack Believe.” It was accepted knowledge in the conservative blogosphere by 2009.

What Maraniss has laid bare, perhaps without meaning to, is a journalistic scandal of historic proportions in which, alas, he himself has played a part.

Click here to print.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.

garebear

  • Time Out
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 6491
  • Never question my instincts.
Copy and paste some more.

We have no access to the internet and can only read what you post.

Thanks.
G

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Copy and paste some more.

We have no access to the internet and can only read what you post.

Thanks.


Maraniss exposed Obama for what he is, lying sack of garbage , not that you messianic cult worshippers care at all. 

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!

Maraniss exposed Obama for what he is, lying sack of garbage , not that you messianic cult worshippers care at all. 

So why do you post if nobody cares?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39387
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
So why do you post if nobody cares?

Because some people do care who want the truth about the communist dictator you cry over and wirship like a god king who is intentionally sinking this nation. 

whork

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6587
  • Getbig!
Because some people do care who want the truth about the communist dictator you cry over and wirship like a god king who is intentionally sinking this nation. 

You cant be a communist dictator.

Communism is power to the people, dictatorship is power of one.

You fail.

So why do you post again?