Barack Obamaâ€™s Campaign of the Lie
By: Selwyn Duke
Absent the ability to read minds and hearts, I canâ€™t really tell you if Barack Obama is uniquely dishonest. What is for certain, though, is that his campaign is uniquely deceitful. These two things are not synonymous. Politicians are famous for suppressing facts and manufacturing fantasies to hide their faults, and, while Obama certainly practices this sleight-of-hand, I canâ€™t say he is more inured to it that your average prevaricating pol. But what is doubtless is that he has more faults to hide.
Itâ€™s ironic that Obama has used the â€œlipstick on a pigâ€ line, because Avonâ€™s whole inventory couldnâ€™t, sans media spin, cover up his true colors. And color is a factor this election. Itâ€™s not that the senator is black, however, or that, as he said last debate alluding to McCainâ€™s criticism, he is â€œgreen behind the ears.â€ Itâ€™s that he is red behind the ears.
Barack Obama may be the most radically-left major-party presidential nominee in our nationâ€™s history. A recent analysis of voting records â€“ not words but actions â€“ showed that the senator owned the most left-wing record in the Senate in 2007, placing him ahead of even that bodyâ€™s one avowed socialist, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. Now, if Sanders proclaims himself a socialist, and Obama is to the left of Sanders, what do you call Obama?
Of course, some question the methodology of the study, and, true enough, a different one might yield slightly different rankings. But if Obama is within a sickle-length of socialist Sanders, does it really matter if he is a couple of spots above or below? This is an instance where we definitely should remember second place.
Yet accusations of socialism are, well, just so hard to believe. But a damning revelation just came to light that should leave no doubt about Obamaâ€™s sympathies. The blog â€œPolitically Drunk On Powerâ€ (PDOP) just discovered documents showing that the senator was a member of the â€œNew Party,â€ which is, the blog explains,
â€œ. . . a political party established by the Democratic Socialists of America (the DSA) to push forth the socialist principles of the DSA by focusing on winnable elections at a local level and spreading the Socialist movement upwards.â€
Now, listen to this. The New Party tried its best to obscure Obamaâ€™s ties to the organization â€“ Iâ€™m guessing with the complicity of the senatorâ€™s campaign â€“ and had scrubbed the relevant documents from its website; however, PDOP was able to find them at a non-profit Internet Archive Organization. Quoting from the October 1996 New Party update, the blog reveals:
New Party members are busy knocking on doors, hammering down lawn signs, and phoning voters to support NP candidates this fall. Here are some of our key races . . .
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
PDOP then cites the November 1996 issue of Progressive Populist magazine, which reported on the results of the general election, writing:
â€œNew Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago [emphasis mine].â€
Providing further evidence, PDOP provides an excerpt from the DSAâ€™s July/August Edition of New Ground 47 Newsletter, which in part reads:
. . . the NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude . . . . [One of them,] Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.
Citing yet another source, the 1996 Election Update from the Columbus Free Post, PDOP writes:
â€œThe first NP member heads to Congress, as Danny Davis wins an overwhelming 85% victory yesterday (he got a higher percentage of the vote in that district than the President). NP member and State Senate candidate Barack Obama won uncontested.â€
Now there is an obvious question. If Obama was a member of the New Party, why was he running as a Democrat in Illinois? The answer is that these socialists were Machiavellian and understood that they could not as yet win power under their own banner. This tactic was outlined in the New Partyâ€™s 1997 Happy Birthday Update. Here are parts of the PDOP excerpt:
. . . the New Party would remain independent of the Democratic Party â€“ but without undermining the Democrats.
. . . the New Party’s founders suggest, the left needs an organization that straddles the inside-outside fence. If the U.S. left is ever to make a meaningful decision on the third-party-vs.-Dems question, they propose, it must first take on the task of grassroots power-building.
. . . The party’s strategy has been to build political organizations in a few targeted cities, working closely with labor and community organizations.
Does Obamaâ€™s history as a â€œcommunity organizerâ€ still sound innocuous or even positive? The above provides the strongest indication that he was a socialist community organizer (â€œagitatorâ€ is a better word).
Here is more from the update:
â€œChapters run candidates only where they have a real chance of winning, combine campaign work with organizing and education, and refuse to spoil elections by stealing votes from the better of two major party candidates [emphasis mine].â€
Given this fact, is it any surprise that ex-weathermen terrorist and Obama ally Bill Ayers obtained a $50 million government grant for â€œeducationâ€ and then gave it the senator, who, in turn, funneled it to ACORN, a group involved in â€œorganizingâ€ (that is, organizing voter fraud)?
The update continues:
. . . Until major changes in the legal structure of the U.S. politics happen, we’re stuck with a two-party system, and progressives â€“ if they want to win many elections â€“ will have to run, and vote, Democrat.
. . . [Our affiliated] organizations can, from time to time, move their political muscle and know-how into Democratic primaries to back progressive candidates for state legislature and even Congress, but do not have the size or clout to field their own candidates for the Senate, the Governor’s office, or the White House.
No, but it now seems they very well may soon have one of their number in the White House.
Next, PDOP provides evidence from an article written by New Party member Jim McGrath in 1997:
â€œ. . . Chapters generally require endorsed candidates to sign a contract, with requirements that they be NP members, identify as such, support the NP principles and program, and work to build NP chapters . . . .â€
In other words, itâ€™s highly probable that Obama signed a contract with this socialist party and was a member.
More from the article:
. . . For the New Party, whether progressives should run as Democrats is a tactical, not ideological, question . . . . Regardless of whether our candidates run as “non-partisan” (in fact, the vast majority of our candidates, as we’re generally running in local elections which are usually non-partisan), “New Party Democrats” (inside Dem Primaries), or independents, they all are New Party members . . . .
Note that all throughout these quotations, we see continual admissions that socialists are, in fact, running as Democrat candidates, using the major party as a political Trojan Horse. These socialists have also won offices in many parts of the nation. Thus, two ominous questions present themselves: Should Obama win the presidency, how many in the Democrat-controlled house will be fellow New Party travelers? And, with both the legislative and executive branches in their hands and the election past, will the lipstick come off? Will they feel free to legislate a radical socialist agenda?
Lastly there is the Chicago DSA Press Release New Ground 69, which tells us (in the Endorsements Section) of how â€œ. . . Obama participated in a 1996 UofC YDS Townhall Meeting on Economic Insecurity . . . .â€
What does â€œYDSâ€ stand for?
Youth Democratic Socialists.
I understand that some of you are enraptured by Barack Obama. He is a charismatic leader at the center of a cult of personality, and you may not want to think ill of him. But we all want to be responsible voters, and this requires placing country before oratory, before image, before personality, before party, and considering evidence presented. And in Obamaâ€™s case it is overwhelming; it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a socialist.
Thus, responsible citizens must demand two things before giving the senator their vote. First, he must come clean about his socialist past and exhibit some contrition. Second, he must convince us that he has renounced these socialist beliefs and will not push the DSA agenda from the Oval Office.
We also must be mindful of the old saying, â€œThe best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.â€ As for the Chicago surpriseâ€™s past, he cultivated his political career in a very bad neighborhood. A bad ideological one. And if he wants to now occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the onus is on him to truly prove he has left it behind.
Contact Selwyn Duke
Contact Selwyn Duke or follow him on Twitter