This page is
graphically intense
with long load times due to photos. However, the photos and narratives makes the wait well worthwhile. The opinions
expressed are those of the author and in no way represents the opinions of others.
If you wish to listen to some golden oldies from 1940s-1990s, click on the
selection on the list below.
There are about 80 full-length songs to choose from.
(NOTE: Song audio degraded due to space limitations, but adequate for computer
listening.)
This is a work in progress. Graphic intensive with long load times because of photos.
BARACK HUSSEIN Obama
CAMPAIGN ISSUES -- UNRESOLVED
Obama Records Sealed (Oct 2008)
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign says his campaign will bring a "new level of honesty and transparency" to the White House. Obama proudly touts that he and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla, passed a law requiring more transparency via a public database of all federal spending. But when it comes to offering the public documents about his own public and private activities, Obama's record for openness gets an "F" grade. During the heated Democratic primary, Obama complained of the Bush White House being "one of the most secretive administrations in our history" and chided Sen. Hillary Clinton for not releasing her White House schedules.
Medical records: Barack Obama has refused to release his medical records. Instead, the public will have to make do with an undated letter signed by a doctor which assured the press and the American public that Obama was "in excellent health". Supposedly Obama had a physical in Jan 2007. (SITE NOTE: Fair is fair. ABC News' Kate Snow reports: With three days left until the election, the John McCain
campaign still has not, despite frequent requests, released any information about vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's medical history, prompting some well-warranted skepticism." Governor Palin said she would be "fine" with releasing her records. The article went on to say that she is the only one of the presidential or vice presidential candidates who has not released any health information about herself. (Source: ABC News.) Wrong...Obama has NOT released his records and only released that he had a checkup in Jan 2007.
On 3 Nov 2008, Palin released her records that stated from her family doctor that she was in fine health after checkups after the birth of her most recent child Trig. Specialized tests were not done because her family history does not show a need for such. She also has a regular fitness program. (Source: Washington Post.))
After McCain released nearly 1200 pages of medical records–the Arizona Senator not only had war-related injuries, but also bouts with skin cancer–the Mainstream Media complained that reporters were not given enough time to go through McCain’s records: they were given three hours to look through them. Three hours is far less time than it would take those same reporters to go through Barack Obama’s medical records that have been released. Because there are none.
(Image is Photoshopped) "I've never been a heavy smoker," Obama told the Chicago Tribune. "I've quit periodically over the last several years. I've got an ironclad demand from my wife that in the stresses of the campaign I don't succumb. I've been chewing Nicorette strenuously." Obama aides say that the main reason Michelle Obama has been pushing so hard for her husband to quit the demon weed is for health reasons, but of course for any public figure, one also has to factor in the image of the habit -- either out of concerns he would be setting a bad example, or that he may turn off some voters. The New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote that his penchant for butts makes the Democrat "intriguingly imperfect," while Fox News Channel's John Gibson has called it "Obama's dirty little secret" and argued that it makes him wonder "what else do we not know about Barack Obama?" Clearly mindful of the image issues smoking may cause, Obama has been careful to keep images of him with what health advocates call "cancer sticks" out of the newspapers. Unlike Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, members of the media have been unable to find photographic images of Obama even a cigar or pipe. The political gossip Web site Wonkette.com has even offered reward money for anyone who can produce a picture of Obama smoking. Other rumored present or past smokers in political life -- first lady Laura Bush, former Vice President Al Gore -- have assiduously kept any signs of the habit away from any prying shutterbugs.(Source: ABC News, Feb 2007.)
Incidentally, even after elected to office, he continued to double-talk his way through the issue. When asked by Tom Brokaw on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not he has indeed quit, Obama gave a clinic on how to dodge even the simplest of "yes-no" questions.
Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" program, interviewer Tom Brokaw told Obama he had ducked answering the question during an interview last month with ABC's Barbara Walters.
Noting that the White House was a no-smoking zone, Brokaw asked Obama, "Have you stopped smoking?"
"I have," Obama replied, smiling broadly. "What I said was that there are times where I have fallen off the wagon."
"Wait a minute," Brokaw interjected, "that means you haven't stopped."
"Fair enough," Obama said. "What I would say is that I have done a terrific job under the circumstances of making myself much healthier. You will not see any violations of these rules in the White House." (Source: Yahoo News.)
The Obama campaign has stated that no medical records will be released. Instead, a one-page undated letter from a doctor will have to satisfy reporters on that issue. The Mainstream Media’s curiosity has been satisfied: there have been no calls for Barack Obama to release medical records The New York Times on Barack Obama in May:
The letter is the first publicly released information about Mr. Obama’s medical history or current condition. The six-paragraph, one-page statement summarized the senator’s health for the last 21 years and was signed by Dr. David L. Scheiner, who said he has been Mr. Obama’s primary care physician since March 23, 1987. The undated letter was released less than a week after Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, released his medical records. A spokesman for Mr. Obama said his campaign would not make Dr. Scheiner available for a telephone interview.” –New York Times, May 8 2008, “Obama’s Doctor, Praising His Health, Sees No Obstacles to Service”
Legion were the stories written assuring readers that “Barack Obama is in excellent health”. That’s great, then why not release the records? Other presidential candidates have assured the MSM that they were in “excellent health”, too.
It depends where your starting point is. I would say, yes, if you’re looking at the history of say, presidential candidates or candidates for high office. In the past, White House physicians have been known to lie; candidates for president or nominees have been known to evade the truth, distort the facts, or lie. You’ve got Woodrow Wilson with a stroke and his wife allegedly running the affairs of the country; you’ve got Franklin Roosevelt who may or may not have been told how deathly ill he was in his last term, and certainly nothing was told to the country about it; you’ve got Kennedy every which way not acknowledging that he had Addison’s disease; you had [Thomas] Eagleton who had to leave the [Democratic] ticket in ‘72 because he didn’t tell [George] McGovern about his past history of electric-shock therapy and depression; and there was [Paul] Tsongas in the mid-1990s and the fact that he had a recurrence after they had maintained that he was cured of cancer.
–Lawrence Altman, Covering Candidates’ Medical Records
Barack Obama stands alone in the last three elections as the only candidate to not release medical records to the public.
What other candidates released their records in the last three elections? What possibly might be in the unreleased medical records?
Barack Obama stands alone in the last three elections as the only candidate to not release medical records to the public.
Gore did it in 1999: Gore’s Health ‘Outstanding,’ Doctors Say. Bush released medical and service records in 2000 and again in 2004: Bush releases his Vietnam-era military files. Though there were some questions, Kerry released records in 2004: Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records. The MSM interest in George Bush’s records was so intense in 2004, it lead CBS News and Dan Rather to report on forged records–though they weren’t identified as such until the blogosphere pointed out the forgery.
What is in those medical records? DBKP does not pretend to know–most likely nothing of interest. But we can’t report that: we don’t know. No one but the Obama campaign knows and they’re not saying. The medical records join Obama’s college and university records as parts of the candidate’s past that is off-limits. We won’t address the senator’s birth records: that’s another subject. The refusal to release the medical records–as well as other information that Joe Sixpack has to provide–only leads to suspicions that only the Obama campaign can quiet. The refusal of the Obama campaign to release records any American has to provide to secure employment is a puzzler: Obama promises “change” and “hope” and transparency. The Obama campaign can demonstrate its commitment to transparency by releasing those records most American have to pony up every time they are interviewed for a job. (Source: 1000 papercuts: Mondo Frazier.)
Birth Certificate: Obama has refused to release the bank vault copy of his certificate. Republican Governor Lingle has sealed all records -- hospital and Department of Health -- dealing with Obama's birth on 27 Sep 2008. (See Birth Certificate for details.)
What Obama Provided
The problem for the critics is getting others to understand -- or at least force to admit -- that the COLB does NOT prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.
What the Plaintiffs Wanted that shows the hospitals -- to show he was born in Hawaii
COLB show by FactCheck.org with raised seal
The main crux for the demand for the vault copy of the birth certificate is to (1) verify that Obama was actually born in a hospital in Hawaii; and (2) to verify the date of his legal name change. The first is to prove or disprove rumor of being born in Kenya. The second is to prove or disprove that Obama entered college as an Indonesian.
There is one who published his findings on the web in mid-November over whether the COLBs on the internet were forgeries. However, this too was immediately attacked by the liberal blogs as being a fraud as well. It was by Ron Polarik, PhD, at Free Republic: Polarik's final report: Obama's 'Born' Conspiracy Forged images, phony photos, and felony fraud. He admits that the other fraudulent individuals who proved to be fakes would reflect on his results -- and that his report would be viewed with suspicion. The report is very lengthy and detailed. It is highly recommended that one check it out for yourself and make up your own mind. However, until a certified authority on forged documents makes a statement about the items being a forgery, all of this is inadmissable as evidence in a court. Polarik claims he is an expert with a PhD in Instructional Media and expertise in computer graphics and peripherals and has provided a sworn affidavit to this fact. He is being used by Philip Berg as his "expert" in his suit's claims that the document is a forgery. He also claims he has received threats from Obama supporters.
The Summary: The Certification of Live Birth documents posted on Mr. Obama's website www.fightthesmears.com, Daily Kos (a pro-Obama blog) and factcheck.org, (a pro-Obama political research group), were found to be altered and forged. (Source: WND.) (SITE NOTE: "Fight the Smears" (http://fightthesmears.com) was removed from the internet on July 2009 along with the copy of the disputed COLB. It is thought to be in reaction to the nationwide billboard campaign in May 2009 by World Net Daily asking "Wheres the Birth Certificate?")
The problem of the pixels: When you have a green patterned document such as this, there should be a lot of green pixels from the background showing up between the letters that appear on the certification. But in this case, instead of green pixels, there are white and grey pixels between the letters, which result when you replace existing text with other text.
There is no second fold line. The pictures show two folds – necessary to fit any COLB into an envelope for mailing, but the document itself shows only one fold. This is another indication of document alteration.
There's a blurred border. The border has a lower resolution than the rest of the document, which is another indication that it has been altered.
The border is one that is used in 2007 COLBs. As a security measure, Hawaii changes their borders every year. This is when the Obama campaign claims the certificate was obtained. That is fine except for the problem that …
The seal and signature stamp are from a 2008 COLB. As revealed by a process called edging, the Hawaiian seal and signature stamp on the back of the document are revealed to be from the wrong year!
Selective Service Registration: Released under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The following expose is from Debbie Schlussel in Nov 2008. She alleges that there is fraud indicated in the documents -- coupled with forgery. The importance of this discovery is that from the Selective Service Website it states: "Employment in the Executive branch (and Post Office) is barred to any male who did not register between the ages of 18-25". If this an actual forgery or altered document, Obama may be ineligible for the office of President -- regardless of the citizenship questions. However, others contend that this regulation only applies to "employment."
Did President-elect Barack Hussein Obama commit a federal crime in September of this year? Or did he never actually register and, instead, did friends of his in the Chicago federal records center, which maintains the official copy of his alleged Selective Service registration commit the crime for him?
It's either one or the other, as indicated by the release of Barack Obama's official Selective Service registration for the draft. A friend of mine, who is a retired federal agent, spent almost a year trying to obtain this document through a Freedom of Information Act request, and, after much stonewalling, finally received it and released it to me.
But the release of Obama's draft registration and an accompanying document, posted below, raises more questions than it answers. And it shows many signs of fraud, not to mention putting the lie to Obama's claim that he registered for the draft in June 1979, before it was required by law.
The official campaign for President may be over. But Barack Obama's Selective Service registration card and accompanying documents show that questions about him are not only NOT over, but if the signature on the document is in fact his, our next Commander-in-Chief may have committed a federal crime in 2008, well within the statute of limitations on the matter. If it is not his, then it's proof positive that our next Commander-in-Chief never registered with the Selective Service as required by law. By law, he was required to register and was legally able to do so until the age of 26.
But the Selective Service System registration ("SSS Form 1") and accompanying computer print-out ("SSS Print-out), below, released by the Selective Service show the following oddities and irregularities, all of which indicate the document was created in 2008 and backdated:
* Document Location Number Indicates Obama Selective Service Form was Created in 2008
First, there is the Document Location Number (DLN) on the form. In the upper right hand corner of the Selective Service form SSS Form 1, there is the standard Bates-stamped DLN, in this case "0897080632," which I've labeled as "A" on both the SSS Form and the computer printout document. On the form, it reflects a 2008 creation, but on the printout, an extra eight was added in front of the number to make it look like it is from 1980, when it was actually created in 2008.
As the retired federal agent notes:
Having worked for the Federal Government for several decades, I know that the standardization of DLNs have the first two digits of the DLN representing the year of issue. That would mean that this DLN was issued in 2008. The DLN on the computer screen printout is the exact same number, except an 8 has been added to make it look like it is from 1980 and give it a 1980 DLN number. And 1980 is the year Senator/President Elect Obama is said to have timely registered. So, why does the machine-stamped DLN reflect this year (2008) and the DLN in the database (which was manually input) reflect a "corrected" DLN year of 1980? Were all the DLNs issued in 1980 erroneously marked with a 2008 DLN year or does the Selective Service use a different DLN system then the rest of the Federal Government? Or was the SSS Form 1 actually processed in 2008 and not 1980?
It's quite a "coincidence" . . . that is, if you believe in coincidences, especially in this case.
Far more likely is that someone made up a fake Selective Service registration to cover Obama's lack of having done so, and that the person stamping the form forgot (or was unable to) change the year to "80" instead of the current "08". They either forgot to fake the DLN number or couldn't do so.
And guess where the Selective Service registrations are marked and recorded? Lucky for Obama, it's his native Chicago. From an article entitled, "Post Office Registration Process", on the Selective Service website:
When a young man reaches 18 he can go to any of the 35,000 post offices nationwide to register with Selective Service. There he completes a simple registration card and mails it to the Selective Service System. This begins a multi-step process which results in the man's registration.
Each week approximately 6,000 completed registration cards are sent to the Selective Service System's Data Management System (DMC) near Chicago, Ill. At the DMC these cards are grouped into manageable quantities. Each card is then microfilmed and stamped with a sequential document locator number. The processed microfilm is reviewed to account for all documents and to ensure that the film quality is within strict standards. After microfilming, the cards are keyed and then verified by a different data transcriber.
The Document Locator Number (DLN) is an automatic function (Selective Service record-keeping, specifically the DLN is described on pages 7-8 of this Federal Register document), with the first two digits comprising the year, and it was not changed to "08" in error. So if the form was filed and processed in 1980, how did it get a 2008 DLN?!
Comparison of signature on Selective Service document to the following: (left) October 12, 1998; (center) June 30, 2004 (right) Wikipedia (SITE NOTE: Only a signature expert can give a qualified opinion, but the "Barack" is definitely different.)
* Obama's Selective Service Registration Form is Apparently 1990 Form Altered to Appear Like 1980 Form
On the SSS Form 1, in the lower left hand corner is the form number (SSS Form 1) and the month and year version of the form, labeled as "B". On this particular Form 1, it clearly shows the month as "FEB" (February), and the year is either "80" or "90". The retired federal agent investigated further:
Magnification of the form both physically (with a 10x glass) or with different image software does not reflect a clear cut result of either a "80" or a "90".
But, checking the history of SSS Form 1 (see http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=198002-3240-001#), it's apparent that in February 1980, the Selective Service agency withdrew a "Request for a new OMB control number" for SSS Form 1 (see also, here)--meaning the agency canceled its previous request for a new form, and one was never issued in "FEB 1980".
Since under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat. 2812 (Dec. 11, 1980), codified in part at Subchapter I of Chapter 35 of Title 44 a federal agency can not use a form not approved by OMB (Office of Management and Budget), it's nearly impossible for Senator/President-Elect Obama's SSS Form 1 to be dated "Feb 1980." And since that makes it almost certainly dated "Feb 1990," then how could Barack Obama sign it and the postal clerk stamp it almost ten (10) years before its issue?! Simply not possible.
The lower right hand corner reflects that the Obama SSS form 1 was approved by OMB with an approval number of 19??0002, labeled as "C". The double question marks (??) reflect digits that are not completely clear.
* Barack Obama's Signature is Dated After Postal Stamp Certifying His Signature
Barack H. Obama signed the SSS Form 1's "Today's date" as July 30, 1980, labeled "D". But the Postal Stamp reflects the PREVIOUS day's date of July 29, 1980, labeled "E". Yes, Obama could have mistakenly written the wrong date, but it is rare and much more unlikely for someone to put a future date than a past date. (Also note how Barry made such a "cute" peace sign with the "b" inside the "O" of his signature. Touching.)
* Postal Stamp is Incorrect, Discontinued in 1970
Then, there is the question as to whether the Postal Stamp is real. The "postmark" stamp--labeled "E"--is hard to read, but it is clear that at the bottom is "USPO" which stands typically for United States Post Office. However, current "postmark" validator, registry, or round dater stamps (item 570 per the Postal Operations Manual) shows "USPS" for United States Postal Service. The change from Post Office to Postal Service occurred on August 12, 1970, when President Nixon signed into law the most comprehensive postal legislation since the founding of the Republic--Public Law 91-375. The new Postal Service officially began operations on July 1, 1971.
Why was an old, obsolete postmark round dater stamp used almost ten (10) years after the fact to validate a legal document . . . that just happened to be Barack Obama's suspicious Selective Service registration form?
* Form Shows Barack Obama didn't have ID
The SSS Form 1 states "NO ID", labeled "F". Since that's the case, then how did the Hawaiian postal clerk know that the submitter was really Barack H. Obama, who may have been on summer break from attending Occidental College in California. How would they determine whether the registrant was truly registering and not a relative, friend, or other imposter?
* The Selective Service Data Mgt. Center Stonewalled for Almost a Year on Obama Registration, Until Right Before the Election.
The retired federal agent who FOIA'd Barack Obama's Selective Service Registration Form notes:
Early this year, when I first started questioning whether Obama registered I was told:
Sir: There may be an error in his file or many other reasons why his registration cannot be confirmed on-line. However, I did confirm with our Data Management Center that he is, indeed, registered with the Selective Service System, in compliance with Federal law.
Sincerely,
Janice L. Hughes/SSS
Then, they suddenly found the record on September 9, 2008 (prior to my October 13, 2008 request), and stated that his record was filed on September 4, 1980. Did they temporarily change the date on the computer database?
On the previous FOIA response, they stated that it was filed on September 4, 1980. In my second request I mentioned that Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980.
* Other Questions: Missing Selective Service Number, FOIA Response Dated Prior to FOIA Request, Missing Printout Page
Where is Obama's Selective Service number (61-1125539-1) on the card?
And the retired federal agent notes that the Selective Service Data Management Center prepared its response to his FOIA request prior to the request having been made:
The last transaction date is 09/04/80 [DS: labeled "G"], but the date of the printout is 09/09/08 [DS: labeled "H"]. My FOIA was dated October 13 so why did they prepare the printout BEFORE I submitted my FOIA? I gave them no "heads up" that I was sending it. In fact it was not mailed until late October--around the 25th.
Also, notice the printout was page 1 of 2 [DS: labeled "I"].
Hmmm . . . where is the other page, and what's on it?
A lot of questions here. And a lot of huge hints that this government-released, official Barack Obama Selective Service registration was faked. Either he signed the fake backdated document, or someone else faked his signature and he never registered for the draft (and lied about it).
Which is it?
It's incredible that our impending Commander-in-Chief either didn't register for the draft or did so belatedly and fraudulently.
The documents indicate it's one or the other.
*** UPDATE: Here's another irregularity that points to fraud, as spotted by reader Joyce:
My husband printed the information provided on your web site regarding Barack Obama's Selective Service registration discrepancies. I noticed that the DLN number in upper right corner (labeled "A") has only ten (10) digits with the first two being 08 , but the DLN number shown on the computer screen printout has eleven (11) digits with the first two being 80. It clearly indicates that the "8" was added at the beginning of the DLN number, in order to appear that it was issued in 1980 and wasn't simply a reversal of the first two digits as the retired federal agent noted. This in itself appears questionable. I would think there is a standard number of digits in all DLN numbers.
**** UPDATE #2, 11/14/08: Retired Federal Agent Source Reveals Himself:
The recently retired federal agent has requested that I disclose his identity so that there is no question as to the source of the information.
His name is Stephen Coffman. He retired last year from the position of the Resident Agent in Charge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Galveston, Texas office. He has over 32 years of government service and has held a Secret or higher security clearance for the majority of those years.
He filed the FOIA with Selective Service and has the original letter and the attachments. He first notified the Selective Service of his findings and they ignored the questions.
Besuki School application -- Released. (Photo of a school registration form taken by Tatan Syuflana, an Indonesian AP reporter and photographer. There was an AP story story in Jan. 2007, but it did not include this photo. (Source: Smith Files Blog.) Obama (Barry Soetoro) registered as Indonesian citizen and as a Muslim. Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. Attended Franciscus Primary School (1967-1969) for two years and the Besuki State Elementary School Menteng 01 in Jakarta, Indonesia (1969-1971) until age 10, in 1971. At the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, the documents showed Obama enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant. (See Besuki Enrollment and associated articles for more information.)
The AP caption reads: "This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy's religion as Islam. (AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)"
The upload timeframe would have been around February 14, 2007 about 2 or so weeks after the document was released that states that the document was made available on January 24, 2007. The date of January 24, 2007 was about the time that FOX news incorrectly reported that the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta was a madrassa. The school itself is NOT in question. What IS in question is Barack Obama's identity, whether or not his name is legally 'Barry Soetero'; whether or not if he was adopted by Lolo Soetero, whether or not if he retains Indonesian citizenship,
That the application states "Islam" as his religion is disregarded by Obama supporters. "But the story according to Obama's books and extra information supplied by his political adviser David Axelrod, is that Obama lived in Jakarta from age 6 to age 10 with his mother and stepfather, neither of whom were particularly religious. For two years he attended a Catholic school and for two years he attended the Besuki School - "where students were predominately Muslim but where they had only one hour a week of comparative religious studies," Axelrod, his campaign manager, said." (Source: Chicago Tribune.) Obama's campaign attempted to treat any question of whether Obama was educated in the Muslim faith as a conservative "wingnut" witchhunt. However, there is truth in that Obama WAS educated as a Muslim in the secular Besuki school.
The "An American Expat in Southeast Asia" blog reports that Obama's Indonesian schooling began when he was entered into the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School on January 1, 1968 and sat in class 1B. He was registered under the name Barry Soetoro, serial number 203. School documents listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen and his religion was listed as Islam. He will spend three years at Franciscus. Catholic schools accepted non-Catholics worldwide. Non-Catholic students are typically excused from religious instruction and ceremony. In 1971, Obama's family moved from H Ramir Street to Dempo Street and Obama enters the 4th grade at the Besuki Primary School, a government school. He was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, Muslim. All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school and a young Barry Soetoro, being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam. In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama's teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she lived in the Puncak area, the Cianjur Regency. "I remembered that he had studied "mengaji" (recitation of the Quran)" Tine said. Obama himself recalls, "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies." A blogger in Jakarta wrote: "The actual usage of the word 'mengaji' in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. "Mengagi" is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, 'mengaji classes' are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to. To put this in a Christian context, this is something above and beyond simply enrolling your child in Sunday school classes." "The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet." "As I've stated before, the evidence seems to quite clearly show that both Ann Dunham and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such."
(Source: Answers Yahoo.com.)
Indonesian Passport (Visit to Pakistan) -- Not released. According to the Obama campaign, in 1981 -- the year Obama transferred from Occidental College to Columbia University -- Obama visited his mother and sister Maya in Indonesia. After that visit, Obama traveled to Pakistan with a friend from college whose family was from there. The Obama campaign says Obama was in Pakistan for about three weeks, staying with his friend's family in Karachi and also visiting Hyderabad in Southern India. (Source: ABC News.) (SITE NOTE: The visit to India is mistaken -- and never corrected. Obama only went to Pakistan and Indonesia on this trip. Instead we contend he visited (with his friend Wahid Hamid) Hyderabad, Sindh -- the second largest city in PAKISTAN -- which at the time was involved in racial conflicts resulting in travel warnings from the US. It should be noted that Wahid and Chandoo remained close friends and attended Obama's wedding.)
However, there is no physical proof that Obama has ever used an Indonesian passport -- and Obama will neither confirm nor deny this item -- though Philip Berg has claimed this in his suit. The World Net Daily claims that Obama had NO US passport that can be found prior to becoming a US Senator in 2004. If this is so, how did he travel to Indonesia, then Pakistan and India in 1980? But this is still only circumstantial evidence.
World Net Daily columnist Janet Porter, wrote in her column on 26 Nov 2008 that there are too many questions to ignore. "There's the matter that Obama traveled to Indonesia, Pakistan, Southern India and Kenya in 1981. He said he went to Indonesia to see his mother. This seemed plausible, except for the fact that his mother returned to Hawaii in August of 1980 to file for a divorce from her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. Unless she went back to pal around with the man she divorced, she wasn't there at the time of Obama's visit," Porter wrote. "There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens," she wrote. "If he couldn't get into Pakistan with a U.S. passport, perhaps he went there with an Indonesian passport. But the only way you can get one of those is if you are an Indonesian citizen," she wrote. (Source: WND.)
There are unsubstantiated allegations that Obama used an Indonesian passport to fly to Pakistan when he was 20 years old in 1981 because Americans on American passports were forbidden travel to Pakistan at the time. If he traveled to Pakistan with an American passport, he wouldn't have been allowed in – since Pakistan was in turmoil in 1981 and under martial law. It was also on the State Department's travel ban list for U.S. citizens. The only way he could have entered was if he had an Indonesian passport. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found.
However, if he had an Indonesian passport, this also means that he did not take the allegiance oath when he was 18 to renounce the Indonesian citizenship when he reached the age of majority -- and remained an Indonesian citizen.
Philip Berg's suit states: "Investigation further showed in 1981, Obama traveled to Pakistan using his Indonesian
passport. At the time of travels to Indonesia, Obama was twenty (20) years old. He was
well aware he maintained his Indonesia citizenship, and failed to regain his United States
citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. Had Obama regained his United
States citizenship, he would have been traveling on a United States Passport." (Source: Court Document: para. 33.)
The Obama supporters claim that the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents (or any other actions of his parents), so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. This Obama did when he returned in 1970 to Hawaii for schooling. (Source: Tesibria.) In addition, it is logical to assume that Stanley Ann Dunham was an expatriate in Indonesia, as was her minor-age son, Barry Soetero. Although Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, Obama's status as a US citizen was not affected as US courts have stated that minors are not responsible for the acts of their parents/guardians with respect to citizenship. To his supporters, Obama was NOT an Indonesian citizen as he let his citizenship default. Under this assumption, if Obama had his old Indonesian passport that he used to enter Hawaii, it was one that was issued when he was a minor and does not prove that he renounced his US citizenship.
However, even if he didn't officially renounce his Indonesian citizenship, by retaining and using the passport was a formal act of recognizing his Indonesian citizenship. Officially swearing an allegiance to America is an irrelevant fact. The problem is that he traveled on an the alleged INDONESIAN PASSPORT in 1980 when he was 20. This means he did NOT reject his Indonesian citizenship -- and instead ACCEPTED HIS INDONESIAN CITIZENSHIP. According to a Department of Justice survey of Law of Expatriation (Jun 2002), "Expatriating a U.S. citizen subject to the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that, after reaching the age of 18, the person has obtained foreign citizenship or declared allegiance to a foreign state generally will not be possible absent substantial evidence, apart from the act itself, that the individual specifically intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. An express statement of renunciation of U.S. citizenship would suffice. An intent to renounce citizenship can be inferred from the act of serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States." Obama does not fit into any of these categories. However, under federal law, a U.S. citizen can lose his nationality if he voluntarily "obtain[s] naturalization in a foreign state . . . after having attained the age of eighteen years." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(1). Likewise, a citizen of the United States could be expatriated if he voluntarily "tak[es] an oath or mak[es] an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(2). In either case, however, no loss of citizenship may result unless the citizen acts "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a). (Source: Department of Justice.)
More damning is his trip to Kenya in 1987. Remember that no record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. If true, this is a smoking gun as Obama made a trip to Kenya in 1987 -- at age 27 -- well above the age of majority on a passport that was other than a US passport. If he had traveled there on an Indonesian passport, he had accepted Indonesian citizenship -- and more importantly, by accepting and using the passport, he in effect RENOUNCED American citizenship. Thus, if Obama actively kept his Indonesian citizenship alive by not relinquishing his Indonesian passport, his US citizenship could be challenged.
(1) Voting in a foreign election, serving in a foreign army, or (2) swearing allegiance to a foreign government used to be automatic grounds for losing U.S. citizenship. But a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 made it all but impossible for someone to lose U.S. citizenship unless he or she wants to give it up. But no one is challenging Obama's US citizenship. It is only challenging him as a "natural born citizen" -- one who owes no allegiance to a foreign power. It only means that he lost his right to be President when he accepted the citizenship of Indonesia by accepting the Indonesian passport.) (SEE Is Obama an Indonesian?.)
Janet Porter's commentary on World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=81943) stated: "There's another problem. No record of Obama holding an American passport prior to the one he received once becoming a U.S. senator has been found. ..."
She was talking about his Indonesia, Pakistan, India trip -- but she didn't mention the smoking gun from her statement. If Obama didn't have a US passport until he became a US Senator in 2003, then how did he travel to Kenya in 1987? This was no longer a case of being a minor -- under the law Obama lost his Indonesian citizenship when he was 21 by allegedly doing nothing. However, if he had a Indonesian when he was 27 in 1987 -- that was long past the age of majority.
My questions: (1) Is she sure of her facts? (2) Is she really sure of her facts? (3) Is she really really sure of her facts? (We do know that supposed contract workers broke into Clinton, McCain and Obama passport files during the campaign. Could the Obama folks claim Porter's info was in error based this?)
The question is: What country's passport was it, if it wasn't a US passport? If it is true, who cares about the birth certificate. The passport issue will prove he was a foreign citizen when he was an ADULT -- not a dual citizen as a minor. CAN ANYONE CONFIRM JANET PORTER'S STATEMENT?
Who was Senator Obama’s host in Pakistan? The Friday Times broke this story in early March 2008 and revealed the host to be none other than Mian Muhammadian Soomro, the caretaker prime minister. This is the quote from the Such Gup section (not available online): "Presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama is no stranger to Pakistan, we hear. For one, he shared a dorm with various Pakistanis as an undergraduate at Columbia university in New York and was close friends with at least two Karachi-ites from famous Sindhi families. For another, he traveled to Sindh on a hunting expedition and went on shikar in Jacobabad. He was a guest, it is said, of the current caretaker prime minister and the latter claims that he is still in touch with him. Obama came to Pakistan when he was merely a state senator more than a decade ago and not a full blown senator in the US Senate. So, can we expect him to look kindly upon us?" (Source: Cyrilameida.com.)
While in Karachi, Obama had stayed at the residence of his college friend, Hassan Chandio. In Jacobabad, he was the guest of Soomro family. Muhammadmian Soomro confirmed this information and said it was his first meeting with Obama. "Yes, he had been our guest and spent three days in Jacobabad," he told The News. Soomro, presently in the US, his second home, said an American friend had told his father, Ahmadmian Soomro, about Obama's arrival in Pakistan and asked him to look after the American. Soomro's father was the deputy speaker of West Pakistan Assembly and had also later served in the Senate. Ahmadmian Soomro had also served in banking industry and was considered a pioneer in cooperative banking. By the time Soomro's father had hosted Obama, he was only a college student who went to Pakistan on his way from Indonesia where his mother was working with the Ford Foundation's micro credit finance project. Also Obama's mother was a frequent traveller to Pakistan and according to Time Magazine, she had a little bit proficiency in speaking Urdu. (Source: Free Republic.)
Punahou School Records: Not released. At this point he was going by the name of Barry Soetoro and it is uncertain when he changed his name to Barry Obama -- and later Barack Hussein Obama. We believe he returned in Autumn 1970 and was considered for enrollment in Punahou at the request of Madelyn Dunham -- by then a VP at the Bank of Hawaii -- for her Indonesian grandson. He was entered into Punahou initially as Barry Dunham -- we believe his mother's maiden name -- and in Dec 1971, Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. returned to Hawaii and Obama had his birth certificate changed to Barack Hussein Obama II. At that point he was officially entered into the Punahou School records as Barack Obama. However, we also believe he qualified as a foreign student using his Indonesian citizenship as Barry Soetoro with Punahou believing he was a dual citizen -- but in actuality Barry Soetoro and Barack Obama were two separate entities with different citizenships. This cannot be proved without the Punahou School records.
Occidental College Records: Not released. Occidental College records sealed. Attended Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years. The only trace of Barack Obama at Occidental College that the public is allowed to see is a few poems that may be ordered on the college's website. What aroused suspicion was that Obama did not originally list Occidental on his political resume initially -- even though he spent two years there on full scholarship. (See Occidental years for more information.)
Critics claim Obama is hiding his school records because they MAY reveal he applied for student loans/grants as a foreign student as it is alleged that he still had a VALID INDONESIAN PASSPORT on which he allegedly traveled to Pakistan at age 20 in 1981. However, there is no proof that he used an Indonesian passport -- and Obama will neither confirm nor deny this. The records were subpoena'ed by Dr. Orly Taitz (plaintiff: Alan Keyes) but the Occidental College was now represented by the Obama lawyers and in Feb 2009, they were attempting to quash the subpoena for the producing of the records. (See Indonesian Passport for details.)
There are also questions on this period on his Selective Service registration filed on September 4, 1980 in Hawaii. Obama could not have filed it in Hawaii on September 4, 1980 as he was attending Occidental College in California, the classes of which commenced August 24, 1980. (See Selective Service Registration for details.)
Columbia University Records: Not released. Columbia University records sealed.Transferred to Columbia University, New York City, where he graduated in 1983 with a B.A. in political science, specializing in international relations. The Obama campaign has refused to release his college transcript, despite an academic career that led him to Harvard Law School and, later, to a lecturing position at the University of Chicago. The shroud surrounding his experience at Columbia contrasts with that of other major party nominees since 2000, all whom have eventually released information about their college performance or seen it leaked to the public. His Columbia senior thesis is sealed. (SITE NOTE: Worked for Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group for one year after graduation. Moved to Chicago, in 1985, to work as a community organizer for the Altgeld Housing Project on the city's South Side.)
Columbia thesis -- Not released. He doesn’t have and can’t release any copies of the thesis-length paper he wrote 25 years ago while a senior at Columbia University. “We do not have a copy of the course paper you requested and neither does Columbia University,” Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt told NBC News. “A thesis entitled Soviet Nuclear Disarmament, written at the height of The Cold War in 1983, might shed some light upon what Barack Obama thought about our most pressing foreign policy issue for 40-plus years (U.S.-Soviet Relations),” David Bossie, the former congressional investigator and “right-wing hit man,” wrote in an e-mail to NBC News.
So what does the missing paper say, and could it be politically damaging to Obama? The Obama campaign won’t offer any guidance since it says it doesn’t have a copy. Spokesman Ben LaBolt wouldn’t even say whether Sen. Obama threw out his copy or lost it. In 1983, as a senior at Columbia in New York, Barack Obama enrolled in an intense, eight-student honors seminar called American Foreign Policy. His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. He had saved Obama’s senior paper for years, and even hunted for it again this month in some boxes. But he said his search was fruitless, and he now thinks he tossed it out eight years ago during a move.
Baron described the paper as a “thesis” or “senior thesis” in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union. “My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States,” Baron said in an e-mail. “At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A.”
Baron said that, even if he could find a copy of the paper, it would likely disappoint Obama’s critics. “The course was not a polemical course, it was a course in decision making and how decisions got made,” he said. “None of the papers in the class were controversial.” So would it provide any political ammunition today? “I don’t think it would at all,” Baron said. “It wasn’t a position paper; it was an analysis of decision-making.”
Columbia University can’t help solve the mystery, either. The university says that it never had a copy of the paper in its archives, and doesn’t today. A spokesman said that no student technically could have written a thesis in 1983, since the university didn’t even have a thesis requirement for undergraduates then.
(Source: Deepbackground.)
Harvard College Records Not released. Harvard records sealed. Entered Harvard Law School, 1988. Summer associate (three months) of Sidley Austin, a Chicago law firm, June, 1989, working under the supervision of associate Michelle Robinson, whom he began dating in the summer of 1989. Interested in seeing how he was financed in his studies. If he was enrolled using preferential treatment as an Indonesian foreign student or if he received any student loans in the name of Barry Soetoro. Also interested in whether he was financed by a Middle-east connection that was raising funds for this obscure Columbia graduate. Obama did NOT graduate with any honors from Columbia and was a consistently "B" student from high school throughout his college years UNTIL he entered Harvard where he graduated Magna Cum Laude. His Harvard years are clouded in secrecy like Columbia years.
Harvard Law Review articles -- None (There may be one unsigned article.) Voted first black president, Harvard Law Review, 1990. Though President of Harvard Law Review, no articles that he published can be found.
Baptism certificate -- None. Though he went from an agnostic to a "practicing Christian" in Chicago and married at the United Trinity Church -- there is no baptism certificate.
Illinois State Senate records: -- His state legislative records are missing and may have been thrown out. Obama claimed he did not maintain any records, including his Illinois State Senate schedule.
All information on Obama culled from Senate voting records or published committee meetings. Obama has refused to release anything citing that everything is on public record. Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said Nov 2008 that "Obama has a track record of leading the way on reform and disclosure," adding that "correspondence with state agencies and records of requests Obama made to them on behalf of his constituents are available to the public and have been accessed by our opponents and members of the news media." Unfortunately, his private records are not included in the "transparency" on what is released for scrutiny.
"I don't have - I don't maintain - a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records," he said at a recent campaign stop in Iowa. He said he wasn't sure where any cache of records might have gone, adding, "It could have been thrown out. I haven't been in the state Senate now for quite some time."
Obama's statement that he has no papers from his time in the Illinois statehouse - he left in 2004 - stands in stark contrast to the massive Clinton file stored at the National Archives: an estimated 78 million pages of documents, plus 20 million e-mail messages, packed into 36,000 boxes. While any file from Obama's time in the state Senate would be far smaller, the idea that no papers exist at all is questioned by one historian.
"Most of those guys do keep this stuff, especially the favorable stuff. They've all got egos," said Taylor Pensoneau, a historian who has written about Illinois legislators and governors and worked with them as a lobbyist for the coal industry. "It goes in scrapbooks or maybe boxes. I don't think it's normal practice to say it's all discarded." (Source: Pantagraph.com.)
Law practice client list Refuses to release. Obama and his former law firm say Obama only did a few hours of work for nonprofit firms connected to convicted donor Tony Rezko, but no records have been released to confirm that.
Obama's refusal to specify who he worked for during his time in private practice with the firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard (now known by only the last three names). In all of his statements of economic interests filed with the Illinois State government during his years as a state legislator, Obama listed every client of the firm. The result was a "disclosure" of hundreds of clients each year – from 247 in his 1997 filing to 448 in his 2002 filing – when he was only working for a handful of those.
Obama's old boss, Judson Miner, said there were 30 cases to which Obama contributed in some way during his time there, full time for three years and seven years "of counsel." How many clients could he have represented in those 30 cases over 10 years? (Source: Sun Times.)
When the Chicago Sun-Times asked for a specific list of his clients in 2007, Robert Gibbs, communications director for the senator's presidential campaign, responded, "The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation. If there are specific questions about specific representations, we will attempt to answer them with the assistance of the firm." That sounds very authoritative, but it's also wrong. Attorney-client privilege covers the fact of representation only in extremely rare cases.
(Source: Campaign spot.) (SITE NOTE: Blog comments from attorneys state that Gibbs statements were incorrect and no such professional non-disclosure rule exists.)
On 17 Nov 2008, the LA Times finally got the information. Dan Morain of the L.A. Times has just discovered that Barack Obama has a pretty thin resume prior to being elevated to the presidency.
In his books, speeches and campaign commercials, Sen. Barack Obama has harked back to his days as a civil-rights attorney. It is fundamental to his autobiography and was displayed on his campaign Web site and woven into his appeals for votes. In one of his television ads leading up to the South Carolina primary, Obama recalled "working as a civil-rights attorney to make sure that everybody's vote counted."
Between 1993 and '96, Obama, the much-ballyhooed "Constitutional scholar," had only an unusually low 3,723 billable hours of legal work accrued over a four-year stint with his law firm employer Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. Further, he seems to have worked on but few cases and made little impact commensurate with his reputation.
The Morain piece begins by recounting how Obama has so often made a big deal out of his days as a "civil-rights attorney" claiming it a key ingredient of his early, formative community development years. Yet, Morain finds that there isn't much record proving that Obama did a whole heck-of-a-lot back in those days.
Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases before entering politics.
Here's how Morain sums up Obama's paper trail:
30: The approximate number of legal cases Obama was involved in:
4: The number of years Obama was a full-time lawyer
70%: The amount of time Obama spent on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. (The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real-estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.)
3,723: The number of billable hours Obama accrued while working at Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard.
Obama wrote in his first memoir, Dreams From my Father, "I work mostly with churches and community groups, men and women who quietly build grocery stores and health clinics in the inner city, and housing for the poor." What is strange is that the article states the Obama wrote Dreams From my Father BEFORE he joined the firm. The article stated:
That accomplishment generated press accounts and prompted Judson Miner, head of the firm that bears his name, to recruit Obama. Obama took time to complete Dreams From My Father, then joined the 13-attorney firm. "He was doing the work that any first-year or second-year associate would do," Miner says. "In litigation, he was doing basic research and writing memos. . . . . In the first couple years he would play a very minor role. He wouldn't know [much], so he would take the lead from whoever was supervising his work."
Obama took what Miner called the "laboring oar" on some cases. He took the lead arguing a 1994 case before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of a securities trader who had been improperly fired. The court ruled for his client.
Morain states, "Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at a firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil- and voting-rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration." In one, Obama filed a 995 suit that forced Illinois to enforce the 1993 federal Motor Voter law, which sought to make it easier for people to register to vote. However, he also cites three more-mundane cases in which Obama was involved. (SITE NOTE: It should be noted that none of the "few hours" that Obama worked on the Rezko cases are included in this list.)
The case of the man who slipped In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed.
The case of the shortchanged baby sitter. Obama appeared on behalf of a nonprofit corporation that provided health care for poor people. A woman who claimed income of less than $8,000 a year had sued Obama's client to obtain a $336 payment for baby-sitting services; Obama's client paid up, and the case was settled.
The case of the chilly tenants. In 1994, Obama appeared in Cook County court on behalf of Woodlawn Preservation & Investment Corp., defending it against a suit by the city, which alleged that the company failed to provide heat for low-income tenants on the South Side during the winter.
So, it appears Obama has less billable hours during those four years than most young lawyers are expected to accrue (which is up to 2,000 hours a year according to some estimates), worked on but few cases, and only on one notable one. On top of that, he was rarely more than a "junior associate" the whole time. (Source: Newsbusters blog and LA Times.)
University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None. This can be explained as he was a part-time teacher at the University of Chicago -- not a tenured professor. Professors are expected to publish professional articles or scholarly works as part of their positions. However, the University of Chicago fudges on the issue stating he was "considered" or "regarded as" a "professor" -- seeking to bask in the limelight as having had a President teaching at their institution.
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer."
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. (Source: University of Chicago Law School.)
MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S LOVE AFFAIR WITH OBAMA
Throughout the presidential campaign, conservatives have been yelling -- if not screaming -- that the mainstream media was giving Obama a free ride. They picked on Palin's wardrobe, but said nothing about Obama's spending on wardrobe by the DNC. There was a double standard. Yes, there were mistakes like the Courric-Palin interview, but one starts to think that Palin was set up by her own staff. How else could a prank call come in directly to Palin -- for radio broadcast?
Now that the election is over, people are starting to ask questions. A lot of people are starting to wake up. Conservatives have been demanding the records -- but they have all been sealed. The really enticing question is how does anyone really know about Obama? Now some people are saying the FBI/CIA should have records already about Obama -- but why won't President Bush release them. Is it because the fear of the mass destruction of American society by enraged blacks going on a rampage? Why won't Obama just provide his records if his claims of "transparency" are real? BUT the biggest question is why is the London Times and Italian Vanity Fair finding Obama's lost relatives -- while the mainstream media does no real investigative reporting. Why was there no pressure from the media although campaign funding discrepancies were discovered repeated -- and documented by press members? Was this part of the reason the FEC says there most likely will not be an audit of Obama's funding?
The reaction from the Obama-loving mainstream press following their Messiah's election has been fascinating. All of a sudden, we're seeing people like Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admitting that they don't know much about the president-elect or his worldview.
ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.
BROKAW: No, I don't either.
ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.
BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.
ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?
BROKAW: You know that's an interesting question.
ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches, two of them.
BROKAW: I don't know what books he's read.
ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?
BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.
Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham shared a bizarre Obama love-fest session with Charlie Rose on the PBS host's program on Wednesday. Meacham stated that he was "very struck watching the stagecraft" of Obama and pointed out how Obama gave his victory speech by himself: "...[H]ave you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage? No adoring wife, no cute kid -- he is the message." Thomas went one step further in this vein: "There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this." Rose confronted him on his use of this phrase, and he explained that it made him "a little uneasy that he's so singular. He's clearly managing his own spectacle. He knows how to do it. He's a -- I think, a deeply manipulative guy..." Later, all three marveled about how it was "amazing" that Obama "watches us watching him."
Obama's honeymoon may be brief.
Then there was the Washington Post article by Barbara Howell that actually acknowledges that the coverage in the paper was biased.
The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts.
My assistant, Jean Hwang, and I have been examining Post coverage since Nov. 11 of last year on issues, voters, fundraising, the candidates' backgrounds and horse-race stories on tactics, strategy and consultants. We also have looked at photos and Page 1 stories since Obama captured the nomination June 4.
The count was lopsided, with 1,295 horse-race stories and 594 issues stories. The Post was deficient in stories that reported more than the two candidates trading jabs; readers needed articles, going back to the primaries, comparing their positions with outside experts' views. There were no broad stories on energy or science policy, and there were few on religion issues.
Bill Hamilton, assistant managing editor for politics, said, "There are a lot of things I wish we'd been able to do in covering this campaign, but we had to make choices about what we felt we were uniquely able to provide our audiences both in Washington and on the Web. I don't at all discount the importance of issues, but we had a larger purpose, to convey and explain a campaign that our own David Broder described as the most exciting he has ever covered, a narrative that unfolded until the very end. I think our staff rose to the occasion."
The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. The Post has several conservative columnists, but not all were gung-ho about McCain.
Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found the candidacy of Obama, the first African American major-party nominee, more newsworthy and historic. Journalists love the new; McCain, 25 years older than Obama, was already well known and had more scars from his longer career in politics.
The number of Obama stories since Nov. 11 was 946, compared with McCain's 786. Both had hard-fought primary campaigns, but Obama's battle with Hillary Rodham Clinton was longer, and the numbers reflect that.
McCain clinched the GOP nomination on March 4, three months before Obama won his. From June 4 to Election Day, the tally was Obama, 626 stories, and McCain, 584. Obama was on the front page 176 times, McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both.
Our survey results are comparable to figures for the national news media from a study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism. It found that from June 9, when Clinton dropped out of the race, until Nov. 2, 66 percent of the campaign stories were about Obama compared with 53 percent for McCain; some stories featured both. The project also calculated that in that time, 57 percent of the stories were about the horse race and 13 percent were about issues. (SITE NOTE: This has consistently been our biggest complaint that the press never covered the issues.)
Counting from June 4, Obama was in 311 Post photos and McCain in 282. Obama led in most categories. Obama led 133 to 121 in pictures more than three columns wide, 178 to 161 in smaller pictures, and 164 to 133 in color photos. In black and white photos, the nominees were about even, with McCain at 149 and Obama at 147. On Page 1, they were even at 26 each. Post photo and news editors were surprised by my first count on Aug. 3, which showed a much wider disparity, and made a more conscious effort at balance afterward.
Some readers complain that coverage is too poll-driven. They're right, but it's not going to change. The Post's polling was on the mark, and in some cases ahead of the curve, in focusing on independent voters, racial attitudes, low-wage voters, the shift of African Americans' support from Clinton to Obama and the rising importance of economic issues. The Post and its polling partner ABC News include 50 to 60 issues questions in every survey instead of just horse-race questions, so public attitudes were plumbed as well.
The Post had a hard-working team on the campaign. Special praise goes to Dan Balz, the best, most level-headed, incisive political reporter and analyst in newspapers. His stories and "Dan Balz's Take" on washingtonpost.com were fair, penetrating and on the mark. His mentor, David S. Broder, was as sharp as ever.
Michael Dobbs, the Fact Checker, also deserves praise for parsing campaign rhetoric for the overblown or just flat wrong. Howard Kurtz's Ad Watch was a sharp reality check.
The Post's biographical pieces, especially the first ones -- McCain by Michael Leahy and Obama by David Maraniss -- were compelling. Maraniss demystified Obama's growing-up years; the piece on his mother and grandparents was a great read. Leahy's first piece on McCain's father and grandfather, both admirals, told me where McCain got his maverick ways as a kid -- right from the two old men. (Source: Washington Post: David Maraniss)
But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager.
The Post had good coverage of voters, mainly by Krissah Williams Thompson and Kevin Merida. Anne Hull's stories from Florida, Michigan and Liberty University, and Wil Haygood's story from central Montana brought readers into voters' lives. Jose Antonio Vargas's pieces about campaigns and the Internet were standouts.
One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission. However, I do not agree with those readers who thought The Post did only hatchet jobs on her. There were several good stories on her, the best on page 1 by Sally Jenkins on how Palin grew up in Alaska.
In early coverage, I wasn't a big fan of the long-running series called "The Gurus" on consultants and important people in the campaigns. The Post has always prided itself on its political coverage, and profiles of the top dogs were probably well read by political junkies. But I thought the series was of no practical use to readers. While there were some interesting pieces in The Frontrunners series, none of them told me anything about where the candidates stood on any issue.
(Source: Washington Post.)
Teflon-coated Obama
Salon.com's Camille Paglia continued on the aftermath feeling of being duped by the election glitter:
In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama -- even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai. For example, I had thought for many months that the flap over Obama's birth certificate was a tempest in a teapot. But simple questions about the certificate were never resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks to their own blathering, fanatical overkill, of course, the right-wing challenges to the birth certificate never gained traction.
But Obama could have ended the entire matter months ago by publicly requesting Hawaii to issue a fresh, long-form, stamped certificate and inviting a few high-profile reporters in to examine the document and photograph it. (The campaign did make the "short-form" certificate available to Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. See Annenberg Political Fact Check: Birth Certificate.) And why has Obama not made his university records or thesis work widely available? The passivity of the press toward Bush administration propaganda about weapons of mass destruction led the nation into the costly blunder of the Iraq war. We don't need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don't like feeling gamed or played.
Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue.
Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi. (Source: Salon.com.)
But on the opposite end of the spectrum Fox Network's Shepard Smith sharply retorted the contention of comedian Nick DiPaolo that the media was "in the tank" for Barack Obama.
"Oh, please...the mainstream media reflected what was happening in this nation. It did not drive it. The blogs didn't drive this movement. The media didn't drive this movement. Barack Obama did not lose this election. It was his to lose, it was not John McCain's to win. The Republicans had no shot unless the Democrats gave it to them, and they didn't. And to blame the media is a cop out and ridiculous. We are always here to be blamed by people like you who enjoy that activity. We always will be. When the Democrats lost last time, it was our fault. When the Republicans lost this time, it was our fault. It's not."
(Source: Huffington Post.)
OBAMA IS A MUSLIM???
This is the massive scare tactic that has come out from McCain and Clinton supporters. Besides the fact that Obama (Barry Soetoro) attended a school in Indonesia and was listed as a Muslim, there is little evidence to substantiate this claim. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro -- a Muslim -- moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language. Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school" in Jakarta.
(SITE NOTE: BUT WAIT...In Jun 2009, Obama started making overtures to the Middle Eastern states as well as Iran and Pakistan -- and lo and behold, Obama became a Muslim (or sort of). Obama said America is not a Christian nation.
Now, in an interview with the French newspaper "Le Monde," Obama said, "...I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam," and claimed, "If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world".
Naturally, the White House transcript of the interview omits this remark.
During a conference call in preparation for Obama’s trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said, "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago." Interesting choice of words -- "experienced"
In his April 6 address to the Turkish Parliament, Obama said "Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim majority country. I know, because I am one of them." Al-Jazeera reported that Obama said he was a Muslim.
Then, in Strasbourg, Obama said, "I think it is important for Europe to understand that even though I am president and George Bush is not president, al-Qaeda is still a threat and that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected as president, suddenly everything's going to be OK," he said.
These comments never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign, when Americans were labeled bigots and racists even for mentioning Hussein's middle name. The candidate was even offended when referred to by his initials "BHO," because he considered the use of his middle name, "Hussein," an attempt to frighten voters.
Well, now it looks like Obama is finally coming out of the closet. Obama says it loud and says it proud. The middle name that no one dared to speak during the election campaign is now front and centre in Obama's attempt to suck up to the Muslim world. This doesn't surprise us in the least. He is a machiavellian politician who will make any promise, make any deal, and stab you in the back to get what he wants. Now he wants something from the Arabs.
Obama said, "My father was from Kenya, and a lot of people in his village were Muslim. He didn't practice Islam. Truth is he wasn't very religious. He met my mother. My mother was a Christian from Kansas, and they married and then divorced. I was raised by my mother. So, I've always been a Christian. The only connection I've had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country. But I've never practiced Islam. … For a while, I lived in Indonesia because my mother was teaching there. And that's a Muslim country. And I went to school. But I didn't practice. But what I do think it does is it gives me insight into how these folks think, and part of how I think we can create a better relationship with the Middle East and that would help make us safer is if we can understand how they think about issues."
Obama repeatedly has denied he is a Muslim. Obama maintains he was raised by his Christian mother and repeatedly has labeled as "smears" several reports attempting to paint him as a Muslim. "Let's make clear what the facts are: I am a Christian. I have been sworn in with a Bible. I pledge allegiance [to the American flag] and lead the Pledge of Allegiance sometimes in the United States Senate when I'm presiding," he told the Times of London earlier this year. (SITE NOTE: The New Yorker Magazine interviewed his mentor in Chicago Politics, Alderman Toni Preckwinkle. On issue after issue, Preckwinkle presented Obama as someone who thrived in the world of Chicago politics. She suggested that Obama join Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. "It's a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners," she said. "It's a good place for a politician to be a member." Obama states he was an agnostic who became a Christian after working with the churches in the area. However, Preckwinkle gives a more plausible reason for his "conversion." It was for politics. (Source: New Yorker.))
His presidential campaign website contained the statement, "Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised as a Muslim, and is a committed Christian." But as WND has reported, public records in Indonesia listed Obama as a Muslim during his early years, and a number of childhood friends claimed to the media Obama was once a mosque-attending Muslim. Obama's campaign had several times wavered in response to reporters queries regarding the senator's childhood faith. Commenting on a Los Angeles Times report quoting a childhood friend stating Obama prayed in a mosque "something the presidential candidate said he never did," Obama's campaign released a statement explaining the senator "has never been a practicing Muslim." (Source: WND.)
In Indonesia, Obama relates that his religious training was not stringent. He said The Audacity of Hope, "During the five years that we would live with my stepfather in Indonesia, I was sent first to a neighborhood Catholic school and then to a predominantly Muslim school; in both cases, my mother was less concerned with me learning the catechism or puzzling out the meaning of the muezzin's call to evening prayer than she was with whether I was properly learning my multiplication tables."
Widely distributed reports have noted that in January 1968, Obama was registered as a Muslim at Jakarta's Roman Catholic Franciscus Assisi Primary School under the name Barry Soetoro. He was listed as an Indonesian citizen whose stepfather, listed on school documents as "L Soetoro Ma," worked for the topography department of the Indonesian Army. Catholic schools in Indonesia routinely accept non-Catholic students but exempt them from studying religion.
The Los Angeles Times looked into the matter further and learned more about his Indonesian interlude: "His former Roman Catholic and Muslim teachers, along with two people who were identified by Obama's grade-school teacher as childhood friends, say Obama was registered by his family as a Muslim at both schools he attended. That registration meant that during the third and fourth grades, Obama learned about Islam for two hours each week in religion class. The childhood friends say Obama sometimes went to Friday prayers at the local mosque. "We prayed but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque. But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played," said Zulfin Adi. … Obama's younger sister, Maya Soetoro, said in a statement released by the campaign that the family attended the mosque only "for big communal events," not every Friday." (SITE NOTE: But the campaign changed its tune when it issued a "practicing Muslim" clarification to the Los Angeles Times. An article in March by the Chicago Tribune apparently disputes Adi's statements to the L.A. paper. The Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama. (Source: WND.)
Reports indicate that Obama as a child was an "irregularly practicing Muslim." "Interviews with dozens of former classmates, teachers, neighbors and friends show that Obama was not a regular practicing Muslim when he was in Indonesia" – implying he was an irregularly practicing Muslim. "Obama occasionally followed his stepfather to the mosque for Friday prayers, a few neighbors said" – confirming that he did pray in the mosque. "Obama's 3rd-grade teacher at the Catholic school, who lived near the family [said that] ‘Rarely, Barry went to the mosque with Lolo'" – confirming that Obama attended mosque services. (Source: Chicago Tribune.)
Obama (Barry Soetoro) registered as Indonesian citizen and as a Muslim. Obama's mother, divorced from Obama's father, married a man from Indonesia named Lolo Soetoro, and the family relocated to the country from 1967-71. At first, Obama attended the Catholic school, Fransiskus Assisis, where documents showed he enrolled as a Muslim, the religion of his stepfather. The document required that each student choose one of five state-sanctioned religions when registering – Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic or Protestant.
After attending the Assisi Primary School, Obama was enrolled "also as a Muslim, according to documents" in the Besuki Primary School, a public school in Jakarta. Laotze blog, run by an American expatriate in Southeast Asia who visited the Besuki school, noted: "All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school, and a young 'Barry Soetoro,' being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam." Indeed, in Obama's autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," he acknowledged studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school." "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Quranic studies," wrote Obama.
The Indonesian media have been flooded with accounts of Obama's childhood Islamic studies, some describing him as a religious Muslim. Speaking to the country's Kaltim Post, Tine Hahiyary, who was principal of Obama's school while he was enrolled there, said she recalls he studied the Quran in Arabic.
"At that time, I was not Barry's teacher, but he is still in my memory" claimed Tine, who is 80 years old. The Kaltim Post said Obama's teacher, named Hendri, died. "I remember that he studied mengaji (recitation of the Quran)," Tine said, according to an English translation by Loatze. Mengaji, or the act of reading the Quran with its correct Arabic punctuation, is usually taught to more religious pupils and is not known as a secular study. Also, Loatze documented the Indonesian daily Banjarmasin Post interviewed Rony Amir, an Obama classmate and Muslim, who described Obama as "previously quite religious in Islam."
"We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house," Amir said. "If he was wearing a sarong (waist fabric worn for religious or casual occasions) he looked funny." The Los Angeles Times, which sent a reporter to Jakarta, quoted Zulfin Adi, who identified himself as among Obama's closest childhood friends, stating the presidential candidate prayed in a mosque, something Obama's campaign claimed he never did. "We prayed, but not really seriously, just following actions done by older people in the mosque," said Adi. "But as kids, we loved to meet our friends and went to the mosque together and played." But the Tribune caught up with Obama's declared childhood friend, Adi, who now describes himself as only knowing Obama for a few months in 1970 when his family moved to the neighborhood. Adi said he was unsure about his recollections of Obama. (Source: WND.)
Summarized, available evidence suggests Obama was born a Muslim to a non-practicing Muslim father and for some years had a reasonably Muslim upbringing under the auspices of his Indonesian step-father. At some point, he converted to Christianity. It appears false to state, as Obama does, "I've always been a Christian" and "I've never practiced Islam." The campaign appears to be either ignorant or fabricating when it states that "Obama never prayed in a mosque." Obama's conversion to another faith, in short, makes him a murtadd -- a convert to Christianity. (Source: Daniel Pipes.)
The "An American Expat in Southeast Asia" blog reports that Obama's Indonesian schooling began when he was entered into the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School on January 1, 1968 and sat in class 1B. He was registered under the name Barry Soetoro, serial number 203. School documents listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen and his religion was listed as Islam. He will spend three years at Franciscus. Catholic schools accepted non-Catholics worldwide. Non-Catholic students are typically excused from religious instruction and ceremony. In 1971, Obama's family moved from H Ramir Street to Dempo Street and Obama enters the 4th grade at the Besuki Primary School, a government school. He was enrolled as Barry Soetoro, Muslim. All Indonesian students are required to study religion at school and a young Barry Soetoro, being a Muslim, would have been required to study Islam daily in school. He would have been taught to read and write Arabic, to recite his prayers properly, to read and recite from the Quran and to study the laws of Islam. In his autobiography, "Dreams From My Father," Obama mentions studying the Quran and describes the public school as "a Muslim school."
According to Tine Hahiyary, one of Obama's teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in the Islamic religious lessons during his time at the school. His teacher was named Maimunah and she lived in the Puncak area, the Cianjur Regency. "I remembered that he had studied "mengaji" (recitation of the Quran)" Tine said. Obama himself recalls, "In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies." A blogger in Jakarta wrote: "The actual usage of the word 'mengaji' in Indonesian and Malaysian societies means the study of learning to recite the Quran in the Arabic language rather than the native tongue. "Mengagi" is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, 'mengaji classes' are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to. To put this in a Christian context, this is something above and beyond simply enrolling your child in Sunday school classes." "The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet." "As I've stated before, the evidence seems to quite clearly show that both Ann Dunham and her husband Lolo Soetoro Mangunharjo were in fact devout Muslims themselves and they raised their son as such."
(Source: Answers Yahoo.com.)
There are idiosyncracies. It was reported by People Magazine in Jun 2008 that Obama and wife did not give Christmas presents nor birthday presents to their children. We wondered if perhaps they celebrated Kwanza instead of Christmas because of the African influence. However, the birthday presents give away the clue that Christmas and birthdays have become too commercial. That was simply a parental choice -- in the same way, they didn't have a dog or pet. Many black ministers claimed perhaps he wasn't Christian -- and conservatives jumped on this that it was because he was Muslim. We think it is most likely a protest against the commercialism of Christmas -- and they probably celebrate the birthday with a family gathering instead of a present.
Both sides continue to bandy about denials of Obama ever being a Muslim or not. In our opinion, it is an irrelevant fact -- and worries that his status as a murtadd impacting on his foreign relations with Middle East countries is ridiculous.
However, people have started to try to tie the questionable Obama funding as coming from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states -- stating that there is some sort of conspiracy between Obama and the Muslims sworn to destroy America. This is blatantly racist -- and based on fear tactics. Though McCain and Palin have not explicitly stated the Muslim factor -- their supporters have done so at length and the McCain campaign has not reined them in. Even in late Oct, Palin was attempting to insinuate that Obama had PLO ties dealing with alleged former PLO spokesman Khaldi.
This campaign is what drove Collin Powell and other conservatives away from the McCain camp as being a Muslim has nothing to do with anything. Most reasonable people do not believe that these Muslim rumors have any weight and are simply scare tactics to sway the voters. (See Snopes.com.)
We personally believe that Obama WAS a Muslim when in Indonesia and followed the practices of his peers in attending the Mosque -- but not regularly. However, once he returned to Hawaii in 1970, he simply forgot the religion and again adopted the path of his non-religious friends. We believe he only adopted the mantle of a Christian when it was politically expedient in Chicago. Thus we do NOT believe that Obama is a Muslim practioner at this time -- but by the same token, we don't really believe he's a true Christian either. Though we tend to believe that Michelle Obama and his children are true Christians, we have to say it is none of our business to question his faith -- only that we question his deceptive statements. The bottomline is we don't think this religion issue is any of our business -- nor any one else's as well.
OBAMA'S 'WEATHERMAN' CONNECTION???
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough." (SITE NOTE: Ayers was not convicted -- not because of lack of evidence -- but because the case against him was built up through the use of the illegal wiretaps of the US Attorney General. See Bill Ayers for background on Bill Ayers.)
Salon.com's Camille Paglia commented on the aftermath feeling of being duped by the election glitter:
"... Another issue that I initially dismissed was the flap over William Ayers, the Chicago-based former member of the violent Weather Underground. Conservative radio host Sean Hannity began the drumbeat about Ayers' association with Obama a year ago -- a theme that most of the mainstream media refused to investigate or even report until this summer. I had never heard of Ayers and couldn't have cared less. I was irritated by Hillary Clinton's aggressive flagging of Ayers in a debate, and I accepted Obama's curt dismissal of the issue.
Hence my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been "pallin' around" with Ayers, in Sarah Palin's memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed. Blame for the failure of this issue to take hold must also accrue to the conservative talk shows, which use the scare term "radical" with simplistic sensationalism, blanketing everyone under the sun from scraggly ex-hippies to lipstick-chic Nancy Pelosi." (Source: Salon.com.)
Despite Obama's attempt to portray their relationship as a distant one, Ayers, in a new afterward to his book "Fugitive Days," describes Obama as a "neighbor and family friend." Ayers claims he was not a terrorist because he only bombed buildings -- regardless of the fact that there were people inside the buildings. He remains unrepentant for his anti-war acts claiming that the US government was murdering people and "he wished he had done more." This feeling also extends to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of the present -- and reflects Obama's feelings as well. There is many similarities between Ayers and Obama opinions -- just couched in different words.
Unfortunately Obama's statement that he was a baby when the Weathermen were active does not wash. The point is that he has associations with these people of the NOW generation -- not the past. We believe, they are not "terrorists" -- at least not in the sense that they bomb buildings -- but they remain radical activists who have NOT given up their view of changing society from the far left. After his election, Obama will be beholden to these far-left radical thinkers -- but at the same time he will be forced to govern from the center. This will create a conflict. This is the problem for Obama who may have sold his soul to the devil -- and now will be forced to bring these elements into government to set policy to bring about the changes they have wanted to make for over forty years.
The Obama-Ayers connection dates back years -- not some nodding acquaintance. The "coincidence" of the Obama-Ayers connections starts in 1988 through Ayers wife, Bernadine Dohrn. Dohrn was at Sidley Austin a law firm in Chicago from 1984 to 1988. Dohrn was admittedly hired because of the connections with Bill Ayers father. Coincidentally, Michelle Obama was at Sidley Austin as an associate lawyer at the same time. In 1988, Obama worked for a summer at Sidley Austin and that was where he met Michelle Obama. Obama worked under the supervision of Michelle. As Sidley Austin was not one of the monster Chicago law firms, but a small firm. To say that Michelle and Obama had a nodding acquaintance with the Ayers-Dohrn duo is very disingenuous.
Dohrn was hired by Howard Trienens, the head of the firm at that time, who knew Thomas G. Ayers, the father of Dohrn's husband. "We often hire friends," Trienens told a reporter for the Chicago Tribune. However, Dohrn has not been admitted to the New York or Illinois bar. She passed the New York bar exam but has not submitted an application to the New York Supreme Court's Committee on Character and Fitness. She also passed the Illinois bar, but was turned down by the Illinois ethics committee because of her criminal record. Trienen said of the Illinois rejection, "Dohrn didn't get a [law] license because she's stubborn. She wouldn't say she's sorry." (Source: Wikipedia and Grossman, Ron. Family ties proved Ayers' point, Chicago Tribune, May 18, 2008.)
Obama doesn't mention that Obama and Ayers appeared together on a panel about juvenile justice organized by Michelle Obama on November 20, 1997: Children who kill are called "super predators," "people with no conscience," "feral pre-social beings" — and "adults." William Ayers, author of A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court (Beacon Press, 1997), says "We should call a child a child. A 13-year-old who picks up a gun isn't suddenly an adult. We have to ask other questions: How did he get the gun? Where did it come from?" Ayers, who spent a year observing the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago, is one of four panelists who will speak on juvenile justice at 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 20, in the C-Shop. The panel, which marks the 100th anniversary of the juvenile justice system in the United States, is part of the Community Service Center's monthly discussion series on issues affecting the city of Chicago. The event is free and open to the public. Ayers will be joined by Sen. Barack Obama, Senior Lecturer in the Law School, who is working to combat legislation that would put more juvenile offenders into the adult system; Randolph Stone, Director of the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic; Alex Correa, a reformed juvenile offender who spent seven years in Cook County Temporary Detention Center; Frank Tobin, a former priest and teacher at the Detention Center who helped Correa; and Willy Baldwin, who grew up in public housing and is currently a teacher at the Detention Center. (Source: Zombie Times.)
Just weeks after the panel meeting, Obama wrote a short review in the Chicago Tribune on December 21, 1997of William Ayers' book "A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court", which had recently been published. Obama's review of Ayers' book says, "A searing and timely account of the juvenile court system, and the courageous individuals who rescue hope from despair." This seemed more a reciprocal endorsement of Ayer's book. There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Chicago's Hyde Park. In that same book, perhaps with a self-congratulatory wink, Ayers cites the "writer" Barack Obama as one among the celebrities in his neighborhood. (SITE NOTE: This starts to bring up the suspicion that Ayers may have helped Obama write portions of his "Dreams of my Father" memoir in 1993 -- that was stalled in 1992-1994 causing the publisher to cancel his advance.)
Obama and Ayers have had other connections. The two men have also served on boards together, including the Woods Fund of Chicago and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles. (Source: Washington Post.)
It is an uncontested fact that Ayers held a meet-and-greet political event for Obama early in Obama's political ascent in Illinois, and the two served on an educational board at the behest of Ronald Reagan friend Walter Annenberg. Today Ayers is a respected Chicago educator who has been praised by Chicago mayor Richard Daley, and "independent" www.factcheck.org (of the Annenberg Fund) has deemed the McCain camp's claims about Ayers and Obama to be "groundless, false, [and] dubious."
Yet the McCain camp persisted in the campaign where Hillary Clinton left off. This included hitting this point repeatedly of Obama's "terrorist" associations in interviews with NBC News. Why? One partisan article stated: "Because they were hoping that voters would come to see Obama as a dangerous dark-skinned man not far removed from another man whose name rhymes with Obama. It's a rhetorical strategy of implied linkage, in which the goal is to forge a connection in people's minds, through repetition, of the ideas of "terrorist," "Obama," and "radical." It's a communication approach that follows in the footsteps of the one used - to strategic perfection - by the Bush administration to tie together Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein, even though U.S. government agencies declared there was no connection. In politics, the implied is powerful. It also is false in this case."
During the campaign, McCain looked the other way while his running mate Sarah Palin, acting as his "pit bull" with lipstick, consistently characterized Obama as someone who doesn't see America the same way that most Americans do. There are two ticking implications in such rhetoric. The first is the unstated assumption that everyone sees the United States as moral and upright, and that Obama does not. In Palin's words at a fundraiser in Colorado: "This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America. We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism." The "we" is presented as a taken-for-granted position: of course all we good people think this way. (Source: Seattle Times.)
It appears in the American mind, Ayers and Dohrn had become simply old hippies who now were part of the establishment -- respected teachers involved in community service and education. The word "weatherman" resonates with the old generation of people from the Woodstock generation, but has no relevance in the present. The entire affair was treated by the voters as Clinton mud-slinging (and later McCain) based on very flimsy and circumstantial evidence.
Ayers made a point of remaining silent during the presidential race, but his proximity to Obama was highlighted on Election Day when the two men nearly ran into each other in the same polling place. As recently as 12 Nov 2008, Palin was still raising the Ayers' issue, telling NBC that she was still concerned about Obama's relationship to the former radical. Palin was the fiercest critic of the Obama-Ayers tie, accusing Obama of "palling around with" a domestic terrorist. (Source: ABC News.)
Who is Bill Ayers? The Washington Post in Feb 2008 ran an article that stated: "His bio claims that William Ayers is a of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He is the founder of the Small Schools Workshop and the Center for Youth and Society, and he is the author of many books on education, including Teaching the Personal and Political, On the Side of the Child, To Teach, A Simple Justice, and A Kind and Just Parent."
A prolific writer, if one only reviews his works on Education, one will immediately see that he is an educator BUT ALSO a militant activist for social justice -- and unrepentant for his militant activism in the 1960s. However, in the afterword of his book Fugitive Days: A Memoir (2001), Bill Ayers refers to Barack Obama as a "neighbor and family friend." The review states:
"Bill Ayers was born into privilege and is today a highly respected educator and community activist. For ten years, he lived on the run as a fugitive, stealing explosives, planting bombs, hiding from the law, and practicing "tradecraft" out of a John Le Carre novel. This portrait of a young pacifist who became a founder of one of the most militant political organizations in U.S. history is drawn with amazing candor and immediacy.
"Ayers begins with his education as a rebel, his increasing sense of horror at the American involvement in Viet Nam, and his growing love for his comrade Diana Oughton. He takes us to the streets of Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago, inside the Days of Rage, SDS, the Black Panthers, and deep into the Weather Underground. At the center of the book is a terrible explosion-an apparent accident-in which Diana and two other comrades are killed. The organization is fragmented, and Ayers is shattered. Slowly he begins to rebuild his life, as a fugitive, with the help of Bernardine Dohrn, whose likeness hangs in every post office in America on the Ten Most Wanted list. Bill and Bernardine become Joe and Rose, working to disarm splinter groups, helping break Timothy Leary out of jail, creating elaborate false identities, and carrying out strategic, bloodless bombings, including one actually inside the Pentagon. Ayers and his comrades become America's other Viet Nam vets.
Chicago Police photos of William Ayers in 1968
"This is the story of one boy's journey into life-his complicated love for his parents and the society that raised him, his coming of age into a world in flames, falling deeper and deeper into a single-minded way of thinking and the loss that all that represented. Ayers writes openly about his regrets, and what he continues to believe was right. Fugitive Days is about a young dreamer, troubled by what he saw, struggling to find a way to make the world a better place, and now grappling with his own story, crafting narrative from memory's elusiveness. The result is a creative yet profoundly honest account of an incendiary chapter in our history.
The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine." Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."
The London Sunday Times joined the chorus by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a leftwinger with dubious support".
The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
In the short term, the person who had the most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist was Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady liked to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics.
But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted? (SITE NOTE: Note that this is part of the MSM bias towards Obama. It automatically assumes that there is NO connection between Obama and Ayers without doing their job of investigative reporting. It should be pointed out that Ayers was not convicted because the case was thrown out because of the illegal wiretaps by the US Attorney General's office. Not because there was a lack of guilt. In 1973, the federal government requested the dismissal of the charges against the couple in the interest of national security following accusations of government misconduct," but state charges against Dohrn remained. Dohrn was still reluctant to turn herself in to authorities until 1980.)
Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice." "This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington said. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."
The Washington Post stated: "The question is not whether a connection can be established between Barack Obama and a former member of the Weathermen, but whether it has any significance for the 2008 presidential campaign. Could Bill Ayers become a political embarrassment for Obama?"
(Source: Washington Post.)
They needn't have worried. In the campaign, this accusation simply slid off of Teflon-coated Obama like all the rest of the muck heaped at him. The truth was the MSM and minorities -- along with the youth vote -- had fallen blindly in love with Obama.
The problem with this attack is that the old radicals have now become respectable. For example, Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover are the founders of Progressives for Obama. "We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country." But look at the folks, Tom Hayden is author of Ending the War in Iraq, a five-time Democratic convention delegate, former state senator, and board member of the Progressive Democrats of America. Tom Hayden is also famous as being part of the radical "Chicago Seven" during the 1969-1970 conspiracy trials. (Source: Wikipedia.) Bill Fletcher, a former Maoist who originated the call for founding "Progressives for Obama", is the executive editor of Black Commentator, and founder of the Center for Labor Renewal; Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of Dancing in the Streets [2007] and other popular works and, with Hayden, a member of The Nation's editorial board. Danny Glover is the respected actor, activist, and chairman of the board of TransAfrica. (Source: Huffington Post.)
However, these four also have links to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) which Obama is alleged to belong to its New Party, then one begins to wonder about the connection to radical intellectuals and activists who have been waiting for their "star child" -- someone like Obama -- to appear. From what we have seen, the activists and intellectuals have all rallied around Obama -- and in this group are a large number of reformed radical activists of the 1960s-1970s. All have grown older and received respectability with age -- but their ideas haven't changed that much. Like Ayers, their far-left activism has not waned.
Ayers Surfaces AFTER Election What was strange was how immediately following Obama's election, Ayers surfaced on national television to tell his side of the story. He played the old Vietnam War was "morally wrong" song and how he was NOT a terrorist -- even though he admitted to bombing government buildings with people in them and being unrepentant for his acts. What people wonder is what Obama will do when he gets into office. In Sep 2008, he voiced an educational policy that reflected the Republican stance. Obama promised to double funding for charter schools, pay teachers based on performance and replace those who aren't up to the job, embracing education proposals normally more popular with Republican candidates. Obama proposed to give parents more options, too — but not with a federal voucher program to pay for private schools that McCain had supported. Instead, Obama seeks to create an array of new public schools.
However, on ABC News, William Ayers said on 14 Nov 2008 that the Republicans unfairly "demonized" him in an attempt to damage the campaign of President-elect Barack Obama. The former '60s radical says the extent of their association was exploited.
Ayers remained militant in his defense of his bomb-throwing past and repeated a statement that has infuriated his critics: "I don't think we did enough." The college professor also argued to "Good Morning America's" Chis Cuomo that the bombing campaign by the group he helped found, the Weather Underground, was not terrorism. The Weather Underground bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and the New York City Police Department to protest the Vietnam War. "It's not terrorism because it doesn't target people, to kill or injure," Ayers insisted.
In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.
The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.
Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends…
I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long. (Source: Ayers: NY Times Op Ed.)
"Wrong!" proclaims University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner explaining in The Volokh Conspiracy.
There is no doubt, however, that at least under current law, he would be considered a terrorist. Here is a definition of terrorism in U.S. law (22 USC 2656f(d)f(2)) (there are others as well but similar):
the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents
The Weather Underground was a subnational group; exploding bombs is an act of violence; government offices are non-combatant targets (the Weather Underground also bombed banks); and the use of violence had the political goal of ending the Vietnam War. "Screaming response" or no, this was terrorism.
Under current law, Ayers was a terrorist. This definition is not idiosyncratic; similar definitions can be found in the laws of foreign countries and in international treaties. Ayers seems to think he ought to be excused for violence because his motives were good, but that is the excuse that terrorists always offer—that their political goals justify their use of violence—and naturally the legal definition could not permit such a defense without subverting itself, or turning every terrorism trial into a debate about whether the political ends of the defendants are "good" or "bad" from a moral or political perspective.
According to a former member of the Weather Underground, Ayers has been "disingenuous" in his statements of the Weather Underground.
Former Weather Underground member Howard Machtinger argues in an "In These Times" essay that Bill Ayers "glosses over" the violence of the organization's actions in a recent New York Times editorial. As a former member of the Weather Underground, I feel compelled to add my voice to the recently re-heated discussion of the group's legacy. ...
We in the WU argued that militant nonviolence had been found wanting in stopping the war; we felt something more was urgently needed. However, there is no evidence that armed propaganda succeeded where militant nonviolence fell short. The WU argument only makes sense if its long-term aim was to set the stage for an armed overthrow of the state - a wildly wrong reading of the times. ...
One need not equate the relentless, pounding violence of the American war on Vietnam or against the Black Freedom movement with the small-time violent actions of the WU in order to be critical of the direction we set. While we in the WU did not, by some grace, become terrorists, we were wrong and destructive. We did lose our way. We were not demons, but we did succumb to our own fantasy of revolutionary pride. (Source: Briefing Room and Huffington Post.)
Ayers became a bogeyman for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, who demanded to know more about Obama's relationship with his Chicago neighbor. Palin accused Obama of "palling around ... with a terrorist." (SITE NOTE: Jeez, he's not a terrorist because he bombs buildings and not the people that are inside the buildings. Right...)
Ayers on Good Morning America (14 Nov 2008)
Breaking his silence, Ayers told Cuomo that the GOP attack was a "dishonest narrative...to demonize me." He added, "I don't buy the idea that guilt by association should have any part of our politics," he said. Ayers scoffed at the Republican effort to make his ties to Obama appear suspicious. "This idea that we need to know more, like there's some dark, hidden secret, some secret link," Ayers said. "It's a myth thrown up by people who want to exploit the politics of fear."
But he was unapologetic about his militant actions during the Vietnam War. "What you call the violent past, that was a time when thousands of people were being murdered every month by our own government... We were on the right side," he told "GMA." The co-founder of the Weather Underground was, as McCain has claimed, unrepentant about the the bombings his group committed during the 1960s. "The content of the Vietnam protest is that there were despicable acts going on, but the despicable acts were being done by our goverment... I never hurt or killed anyone," Ayers said.
"Frankly, I dont think we did enough, just as today I dont' think we've done enough to stop these wars," he said.
Ayers did soften his stand on violence during the "GMA" interview.
"We knew it was wrong. We knew it was illegal. We knew it was immoral," he said, but they felt they "had to do more" to stop the Vietnam war. He urged people today "to participate in resistance, in nonviolent,direct action" to stop the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ayers, 63, currently a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, became a political piñata for McCain, R-Ariz., and Palin during the presidential campaign.
During the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, a controversy arose regarding Ayers' contacts with then-candidate Barack Obama. Obama's contacts with Ayers had been public knowledge in Chicago for years. After being raised by the British press the connection was picked up by blogs and newspapers in the United States. The matter was raised in a debate by Hillary Rodham Clinton in February 2008 after it had been suggested by Sean Hannity and other hosts on conservative talk radio programs. It later became an issue for the John McCain presidential campaign. Investigations by the New York Times, CNN, and other news organizations concluded that Obama does NOT have a close relationship with Ayers.
However, despite Obama's attempt to portray their relationship as a distant one, Ayers, in a new afterward to his book "Fugitive Days," describes Obama as a "neighbor and family friend."
On "GMA," Ayers again downplayed any close ties to Obama despite the reference to"family friend." "I'm talking there about the fact that I became an issue, unwillingly and unwittingly," he said. "It was a profoundly dishonest narrative... I'm describing there how the blogosphere characterized the relationship."
"I would say, really, that we knew each other in a professional way on the same level of, say, thousands of other people," he said. He added, echoing a phrase that Obama used to describe Ayers, "I am a guy around the neighborhood." Ayers acknowledged that he held a reception in his home when Obama began his political run for state office. "He was probably in 20 homes that day," Ayers said.
Ayers has got a book to sell and n a Dec. 6 New York Times op-ed -- headlined "The Real Bill Ayers" -- Ayers cast himself as the victim of a "profoundly dishonest drama" in which he was branded an "unrepentant terrorist." He insisted that he never killed or hurt anyone and never intended to. His Weather Underground committed "symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed against monuments to war and racism" -- not terrorism. Its bombings were surgical strikes "meant to respect human life." This is NOT what really happened -- as opposed to Ayers's selective version.
lAyers omits the 1969 "Days of Rage" riot in Chicago, spearheaded by his Weatherman faction of Students for a Democratic Society. He kicked it off by helping to blow up a downtown police monument the night of Oct. 6, 1969; the blast showered rubble on a nearby expressway and shattered more than 100 windows.
If a warning to the public preceded this strike, Ayers doesn't mention it in his 2001 memoir, "Fugitive Days" -- nor does contemporaneous media coverage. In fact, a bus driver told police that his vehicle stalled near the statue a half-hour before the blast; he would have been a sitting duck 30 minutes later. Days afterward, Ayers and other club-wielding leftists fought and injured police officers and smashed storefronts and cars. A government attorney tried to tackle one of them and wound up paralyzed.
In his Times column, Ayers's chronology focuses on 1970, the year he co-founded the Weather Underground "after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village." But this wasn't some especially radicalizing furnace mishap. On March 6, 1970, three members of a Weatherman cell died when a bomb they were making blew up in their faces. Packed with nails for maximum lethality, it had been intended for a noncommissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, N.J.
Only then did the Weatherman faction mutate into the Weather Underground -- and begin issuing pre-detonation warnings. Even so, it was still a matter of luck that there were no casualties. As Todd Gitlin, a former '60s leftist and a historian of the period, put it: "They planned on being terrorists. Then their bomb blew up and killed several of them and they thought better of it. They were failed terrorists."
Ayers told me this week that he did not know about the nail bomb in advance -- and condemned it afterward. I take him at his word. So why obfuscate in the Times? Editors cut the article, he protested -- before conceding that his original version left it out, too. His refutation of the "terrorist" charge relies, ironically, on the U.S. government's definition: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." "We did not do that," Ayers insisted.
To some, the U.S. Capitol, a Weather Underground target, might qualify as "non-combatant." But Ayers said it was fair game: The U.S. invasion of Laos and Cambodia made it "a symbol of empire." Ayers has been singing this tune for years. In a 1976 tract, he called for "revolutionary violence," as long as it was "humane." By then the war was over, and his goal was "to build communist organization toward the stage where armed struggle becomes a mass phenomenon led by a Marxist-Leninist party: a revolutionary stage." His crazy means were dictating even crazier ends.
Hardly the worst crimes of that turbulent era, the Weather Underground's deeds were nevertheless immoral. They put innocents at risk and sowed fear. Ultimately, they achieved nothing except to undermine the peaceful antiwar movement. Bill Ayers should cut the sophistry and admit it.
(Source: Washington Post.)
On 19 Jan 2009, Bill Ayers was turned back at the Canadian border by border guards. He had been scheduled to speak at the Centre for Urban Schooling at University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. The engagement was cancelled. People immediately speculated that perhaps it had something to do with the Obama inauguration on the 20th of Jan.
Did Ayers Ghostwrite Obama's book, Audacity to Hope? Others think there is also more that meets the eye when Ayers and Obama's writing styles are compared. Jack Cashill, author of Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture. wrote an article on World Net Daily, Study: Ayers Was Ghostwriter On Obama "Dreams" Book on 2 Nov 2008 that states the (1) the writers of Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope were written by DIFFERENT writers; and (2) Obama's The Audacity of Hope and Bill Ayer's Fugitive Days bear striking similarities. Cashill then makes the conclusion that Bill Ayers was the ghost-writer of Obama's Dreams of My Father. The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed Obama from the struggling literalist of 1994 into the sophisticated postmodernist of 1995, and he did so not by tutoring, but by rewriting, including the very Introduction and Preface.
In other words, Jack Cashill hypothesizes that Bill Ayers wrote Dreams of My Father in most of its entirety. Cashill is convinced that Obama is crappy writer -- but Bill Ayers has the ability to make a best seller out of Dreams of My Father. However, in his second book Audacity of Hope, Obama was trying to distance himself from Ayers. Cashill maintains that Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope are written by different writers -- neither of them Obama. Cashill believes that Ayers wrote the prologue to the book Audacity of Hope, but Obama's chief speech writer Jon Favreau wrote the rest of the book, trying to "mimic" Obama's "style" in Dreams of My Father.
SITE NOTE: Jack Cashill is an independent writer and producer and, on a contractual basis, the Executive Editor of Ingram’s Magazine, Kansas City’s premier business magazine. In addition to his work with Ingram’s, Jack has written for Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Weekly Standard, and regularly for WorldNetDaily. He has had one collection of essays published—Snake Handling in Mid-America and one novel—2006: The Chautauqua Rising. Within the last five years Jack has written five books of non-fiction — First Strike, Ron Brown’s Body, Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture, Sucker Punch: The Left Hook that Dazed Ali and Killed King's Dream and his latest, What's the Matter with California. Three of them have cracked Amazon’s top ten list. Jack has produced at least a dozen documentaries for regional PBS and national cable channels, including the Emmy Award-winning, The Royal Years. Jack has also produced an audio book, Understanding America: the great speeches, sermons, documents and narratives of the American experience. In addition, Jack hosted daily talk radio shows for five years—four of those with KMBZ, Kansas City’s foremost AM station, and one year with Catholic Family Radio’s national network. Jack has a Ph.D. from Purdue University in American studies, has taught media and literature at Purdue and at Kansas City area universities, and served as a Fulbright professor in France. Jack's latest book, What's the Matter with California (Simon & Schuster), came out in paperback in August 2008. (Source: Cashill.com.)
However, the developer of the Signature software used in one of the tests, Peter Millican, an Oxford scholar, stated: "The author of the analysis describes some of his results as "striking", but this looks very exaggerated to me. Without any comparable statistics involving other texts, we have no way of assessing their true significance. So his claim to have made "a strong case for the likelihood that the author of Fugitive Days ghostwrote Dreams from My Father" is completely unsubstantiated."
The following is Jack Cashill's article on attempting to prove Ayer's ghostwrote Obama's book:
"In early October (2008), a friend of Chris Yavelow's forwarded him a copy of my article, "Who Wrote Obama's Dreams From My Father." In the article, I make the case that erstwhile terrorist Bill Ayers had a substantial and easily detectable hand in the writing of Obama's lyrical masterwork, one that Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician."
(SITE NOTE: Yavelow is a sort of renaissance man who by his own resume -- "...the 70s were Chris Yavelow's performance years; he founded, co-founded, directed, or co-directed many performance organizations in New England, at least one of which, The Annex Players, still exists (renamed Dinosaur-Annex). The 80s and early 90s were his computer-music years during which he was active on the board of NEWCOMP (The New England Computer Arts Association), worked for Kurzweil during the crucial years when MIDI was established, and helped bring Macs to the entertainment industry in Hollywood where he was, for several years, the director of MEGA (the Macintosh Entertainment Guild of America), a joint venture of Apple Computer and Paramount, and also founded FUGUE (the first Finale Users Group) while he was one of the directors of the LAMG (Los Angeles Macintosh Group). The 90s saw his gradual shift to multimedia development and expert systems. At the turn of the century, Chris Yavelow began applying his talents to writing novels under a nom de plume and soon became interested in distance education for music (currently teaching at the University of Maryland University College). An avid geocacher, he continues to compose music, write nonfiction, and develop software. In 2008 he began preparing to bicycle from D.C. to L.A. in the summer of 2010. (Source: Chris Yavelow.)
The friend knew that Yavelow, an award-winning composer and author, had worked for years developing what he believes is the most comprehensive linguistics tool for authorship detection, a software product trademarked as FictionFixer. Yavelow contacted me and I sent him some relevant materials. When he ran the two books nominally by Barack Obama, the 1995 Dreams From My Father and the 2006 Audacity of Hope, through FictionFixer, he concluded, "They were written by different people."
Yavelow cites a score of other characteristics that change too conspicuously from one Obama book to the next, among them the Flesch Reading Ease score, the use of gender words, sentence starters, adverbs, discouraged words, sensory triggers, and more. When, however, Yavelow compared Obama's Dreams with Bill Ayers' memoir, Fugitive Days, he found the similarity of the two books "striking." He then quickly corrects himself: "'Striking' is an understatement for the relationship FictionFixer uncovered between Fugitive Days and Dreams From My Father." For instance, Dreams averages 17.61 words and 26.48 syllables for non-dialogue sentences. Fugitive Days averages 17.62 words and 26.27 syllables. Another example is what Yavelow calls "attributions"—e.g., he "asked," she "said," they "wondered." Some authors use as few as three. Many use fewer than twenty. Dreams, however, uses 36; Fugitive Days 34, and with only four exceptions—three of these used only once—the two books use the very same attributions.
Yavelow compares the two books on any number of other characteristics and concludes, "There is a strong likelihood that the author of Fugitive Days ghost-wrote Dreams From My Father using recordings of dialog (either tape recorded or notes). Alternatively, another scenario could be possible: Ayers might have served as a 'book doctor'."
By the standards of this profession, it is remarkably easy for the layman to follow.
Unbeknownst to Yavelow, three other individuals or teams had volunteered to run analyses of the books using off-the-shelf software, which allows for easier testability.
Andrew Longman, a consulting instrumentation scientist presently working in test engineering, observes: "The Ayers-Obama matching shows a measurable and substantial effect. It is easily and objectively distinguishable from comparison to a third document."
Longman adds a useful bit of advice: "These results achieved through good methodology should readily stimulate scientists skilled in the particular relevant fields to construct their own tests, place objective metrics on the correlation between the Ayers-Obama documents, and publish results. We strongly think this bears immediate investigation by the academic community at large as the initial data presented is highly suggestive that these two documents share large portions of authorship." (SITE NOTE: Notice that Longman does NOT definitively state that the books were written by the same author, but states that other researchers need to be involved because it is "highly suggestive" that "large portions" share a common author.)
Systems engineer Ed Gold, with twenty years experience in pattern recognition and classifier design, ran tests of his own. His conclusion: "The statistical style analysis performed by our research team suggests that the writing style of Dreams From My Father is significantly more similar to the style observed in Fugitive Days than to the style found in other works by Barack Obama such as Audacity of Hope. "
Gold continues, "Even more interesting, when we extract those sections of Dreams From My Father that Dr. Cashill believes to be Ayers' writing and treat this as a unique document, the style analysis software identifies a stronger correlation between this sample and Ayers' Fugitive Days than we see between this same sample and the remainder of Dreams From My Father! Thus we have reason to believe that Dreams From My Father had at least two authors, and one author's measured style features more closely match those of Ayers than they match those of the other author(s)."
A team based at a large state university, who have chosen to remain anonymous to keep their jobs, came to the same conclusion Gold did. "Under the Q-value statistic," they contend, "segments of Dreams consistently compared as well with Fugitive segments as it did with other segments of Dreams itself. In contrast, Dreams compared poorly with other documents."
"Using the chi-square statistic," they add, "Obama's and Ayers's books were indistinguishable while Obama's book was easily distinguishable from books by other authors."
In an earlier correspondence I had with Patrick Juola of Duquesne, one of the nation's leading authorities on literary forensics, he cautioned that "the accuracy simply isn't there."
(SITE NOTE: Patrick Juola is an associate professor at the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. (Source: Patrick Juola and Patrick Juola webpage.) and author of Authorship Attribution (2008). Authorship attribution, the science of inferring characteristics of the author from the characteristics of documents written by that author, is a problem with a long history and a wide range of application. It is an important problem not only in information retrieval but in many other disciplines as well, from technology to teaching and from finance to forensics. The idea that authors have a statistical "fingerprint'' that can be detected by computers is a compelling one that has received a lot of research attention. Authorship Attribution surveys the history and present state of the discipline, presenting some comparative results where available. It also provides a theoretical and empirically-tested basis for further work. Many modern techniques are described and evaluated, along with some insights for application for novices and experts alike. Authorship Attribution will be of particular interest to information retrieval researchers and students who want to keep up with the latest techniques and their applications. It is also a useful resource for people in other disciplines, be it the teacher interested in plagiarism detection or the historian interested in who wrote a particular document. (Source: Amazon.com.))
As he explained, the best-performing methods range between 50 and 90 percent in accuracy and for high stakes issues like this one, "The repercussions of a technical error could be a disaster (in either direction)."
Juola added, "A better approach is simply to do what you're already doing . . . good old-fashioned literary detective work."
That much said, the media have insisted on the confirmation of science, however imprecise. They assuredly hoped that I would not get it. Now that I have, and from four sets of independent researchers, I am sure they will find some new reason to ignore the most consequential literary fraud of our time.
As I document in my book Hoodwinked, literary fraud is surprisingly easy to get away with if the presumed writer is advancing a cause that the literary gatekeepers wants to see advanced. Although there are obvious exceptions, the people who guard the cultural gates tend to be liberal on sexual and social issues, socialist on economic ones, internationalist in their worldview, and Democratic in their voting preferences.
Can one even imagine, for instance, the frenzy of investigation that would follow a Sarah Palin release of a book as stylish as Dreams, especially if she claimed it as her own?
Parallel stories
One need not be a forensic linguist to see Ayers' hand prints on Obama's Dreams. Indeed, my single best source to date has been a 39 year-old father of three who, when not running a small Midwest construction business, has been combing through the books of Ayers and Obama.
Joe the Builder—given Joe the Plumber's fate he prefers to remain anonymous–spotted at least two of the stories that bleed from the 1993 Ayers' book To Teach into the 1995 Obama book Dreams From My Father. They bear repetition.
In To Teach, Ayers lays out the difference between "education" on the one hand and "training" on the other. "Education is for self-activating explorers of life, for those who would challenge fate, for doers and activists, for citizens," Ayers writes.
"Training," on the other hand, "is for slaves, for loyal subjects, for tractable employees, for willing consumers, for obedient soldiers."
In Obama's Dreams, these thoughts find colloquial expression in the person of "Frank," the real life poet, pornographer and Stalinist, Frank Marshall Davis. "Understand something, boy," Frank tells the college-bound Obama. "You're not going to college to get educated. You're going there to get trained."
Frank shares Ayers' distaste for training. "They'll train you to forget what it is that you already know," Frank tells Obama. "They'll train you so good, you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit."
Frank also tells Obama that "leaving your race at the door" is an essential part of the university's training mission. Ayers makes the same case about training in reference to Indian schools, which insist, according to Ayers, that students be "stripped of everything Indian and taught to be like whites."
In the same 1993 book, To Teach, Ayers tells the story of an adventurous teacher who takes her students out to the streets of New York to learn interesting life lessons about the culture and history of the city.
As Ayers tells it, the students were fascinated by the Hudson River nearby and asked to see it. When they got to the river's edge, one student says, " Look, the river is flowing up." A second student answers, "No, it has to flow south-down."
Upon further research, the teacher discovers "that the Hudson River is a tidal river, that it flows both north and south, and they had visited the exact spot where the tide stops its northward push."
In his 1995 book, Dreams From My Father, Obama shares a stunningly similar story from his own brief New York sojourn. As Obama tells it, he takes an unlikely detour to the exact spot on the parallel East River where the north-flowing tide meets the south-flowing river.
There, improbably, a young black boy approaches this strange man and asks, "You know why sometimes the river runs that way and then sometimes it goes this way?" Obama tells the boy it "had to do with the tides."
In his 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent, Ayers tells of a useful reading assignment from the 1992 book, The Kind of Light That Shines on Texas, by black author Reginald McKnight.
The passage in question deals with the travails of Clint, the first black student in a newly integrated school, who tries to distance himself from Marvin, the only other black boy in the school.
"Can you believe that guy?" Clints tells a white student. "He's like a pig or something. Makes me sick." Upon reflection, Clint thinks, "I was ashamed. Ashamed for not defending Marvin and ashamed that Marvin even existed."
In Dreams, Obama reflects on his own first days as a ten year-old at his Hawaiian prep school, a transition complicated by the presence of "Coretta," the only other black student in the class.
When the other students accuse Obama of having a girlfriend, Obama shoves Coretta and insists that she leave him alone. Although "his act of betrayal" buys him a reprieve from the other students, Obama, like Clint, understands that he "had been tested and found wanting." These are three such parallel stories that have been found. I suspect that there are more.
Style parallels
A few days ago I received an email from a Boston-area writer and composer, Jay Spencer, who suggested some additional parallels between Obama's Dreams and Ayers' books that had evaded me. Even the casual reader cannot help but acknowledge them.
Remember that the young Ayers served as a merchant seaman, and although he has tried to put his ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go.
"I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.
Although there are no literal sea experiences in Dreams, the following words appear in both Dreams and in Ayers' work: fog, mist, ships, seas, boats, oceans, calms, captains, charts, first mates, storms, streams, wind, waves, barges, horizons, ports, panoramas, moorings, tides, currents, and things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, and murky. This is not coincidence. This is fraud.
Indeed, landlubber Obama knowingly manages to use "ballast" as a metaphor. Who knows from Ballast? I don't.
Despite the fact that I have spent a good chunk of every summer of my life at the ocean, the only two of the above words to appear in my own semi-memoir on race, Sucker Punch, are "current" and "tide."
Not surprisingly, two of the more conspicuous parallel structures that Spencer discovered involve the flow of elements that intrigue Ayers—water and language.
Writes Ayers in Fugitive Days: "The debates swam above and around and through us . . . . The confrontation in the [Student Union] flowed like a swollen river in to the teach-in, carrying me along the cascading waters from room to room, hall to hall, bouncing off boulders."
Writes Obama in Dreams: "I heard all our voices begin to run together, the sound of three generations tumbling over each other like the currents of a slow-moving stream, my questions like rocks roiling the water, the breaks in memory separating the currents, but always the voices returning to that single course, a single story."
I would bet my house against Obama's mailbox that the gifted writer Ayers wrote both these passages. Now, note the rhythm, cadence, and layered structure of the following two excerpts, both dealing with waves.
Writes Ayers in A Kind And Just Parent: "The hard ground is frozen through, the wintry waves upswept–all white and frosty–transposed in midcrash from furious motion to arctic glass. A fading, fragile sun offers no heat and precious little light to our dark smudge of a city nestled between Lake Michigan and the vast, flat plains stretching westward."
Writes Obama in Dreams: "The trembling blue plane of the Pacific. The moss-covered cliffs and the cool rush of Manoa Falls, with its ginger blossoms and high canopies filled with the sounds of invisible birds. The North Shore's thunderous waves, crumbling as if in a slow-motion reel. The shadows off Pali's peaks; the sultry scented air."
No one who has seen Obama's earlier writing or paid heed to his casual speech could make a serious case that Obama was capable of writing either of these two cited passages from Dreams.
The early Obama
Before 1995 all that Barack Obama had managed to publish was some bad undergraduate poetry, a wonkish tract on community organizing, and a leaden case comment on abortion law.
Despite being named president of the Harvard Law Review—more of a popularity than a literary contest—Obama has, most unusually, written nothing under his own name for the HLR or any other legal journal.
The Obama camp has refused all inquiries on grades, SAT scores, LSAT scores, student theses, or any other documents that would flesh out what Politico calls Obama's "scant paper trail."
Sometime between 1992 and 1994 Simon & Schuster cancelled the advance that it had offered Obama. Obama had not been able to finish the commissioned book on his own. Ayers could help. He provided an informal editing service for like-minded friends in the neighborhood.
(SITE NOTE: This seems to be corroborated during the period in which Obama was an Associate Attorney but the firm claims that Obama wrote the novel BEFORE he came to work for them. That accomplishment generated press accounts and prompted Judson Miner, head of the firm that bears his name, to recruit Obama. Obama took time to complete Dreams From My Father, then joined the 13-attorney firm.)
Fellow radical Rashid Khalidi—he of the LA Times tapes controversy–attests to this in the very first sentence of the acknowledgements in his book, Resurrecting Empire. "There are many people without whose support and assistance I could not have written this book, or written it in the way that it was written," he writes. "First, chronologically, and in other ways, comes Bill Ayers."
There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Chicago's Hyde Park. Obama, for instance, wrote a short and glowing review of Ayers' 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent, for the Chicago Tribune. In that same book, perhaps with a self-congratulatory wink, Ayers cites the "writer" Barack Obama as one among the celebrities in his neighborhood.
Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. Earlier that year, Ayers helped Obama get appointed chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant. In the fall of that same year, 1995, launched Obama's political career with a fundraiser in his Chicago home. In short, Ayers had the means, the motive, the time, the place, and the ability to burnish Obama's literary star.
Postmodern themes
Jay Spencer noticed another characteristic obvious in both Dreams and Fugitive Days, "the notion popular in leftist academic circles . . . that we understand our lives in terms of a personal story or narrative." Spencer adds, "These stories exist as part of a larger social narrative, and an unquestioned narrative denies the reality of other stories and perspectives."
Spencer had apparently not seen the work I had done on this same postmodern theme, but he does add still more useful parallels. Here are two. There are a score more. The first is from Dreams on the subject of a clueless relative:
"I know how strongly Gramps believed in his fictions. . . . I suspect that black people became a part of these fictions of his, the narrative that worked its way through his dreams."
This one from Fugitive Days on the subject of a clueless relative:
"Mom's script was already written as a simple smiley face, but I wanted more than that relentlessly sunny atmosphere, the enveloping gleam of an untroubled narrative."
This one is from Dreams on the merging narratives of ordinary people:
". . . the stories of ordinary people were the stuff out of which families, communities, economies would have to be built. . . . The stories . . . formed a counternarrative buried deep within each person."
This one is from Ayers on the merging narratives of ordinary people:
"It's important not only to know that there are various perspectives, but to acknowledge that in any community or school or family, I am one person, that many stories are being lived and enacted."
In assessing the postmodern diffidence of the 1995 Introduction and the 2004 Preface to Dreams, Ohio State classics professor, Bruce Heiden makes a fascinating claim: Obama takes no credit for the actual writing process beyond the curiously passive, "What has found its way onto these pages is a record of a personal, interior journey." Adds Heiden with a smile:
As Obama tells it, his authorship of Dreams was miraculous, because although he lacked the writing skill to be the author of anything, and he didn't want to be the author of a memoir in particular, and he resisted becoming the author of a memoir, and he tried in vain to become the author of a different kind of book . . . Dreams from My Father, nevertheless somehow it 'found its way' onto the page with Barack Obama's name under the title as the author.
The evidence strongly suggests that Ayers transformed Obama from the struggling literalist of 1994 into the sophisticated postmodernist of 1995, and he did so not by tutoring, but by rewriting, including the very Introduction and Preface.
To be sure, there are other postmodernists in Chicago, maybe even in Hyde Park, but few who write as stylishly and as intelligibly as Ayers and fewer still who make their services available to would-be authors of a leftist bent.
The media and the evidence
The following passage, one of the very few in the major media to condescend to the question of Barack Obama's altogether likely literary fraud, nicely captures their willful blindness on the subject.
"The bizarre accusation Jack Cashill made . . . that Obama didn't write "Dreams From My Father" (and that Bill Ayers did) has caught fire in the blogosphere and on talk radio."
So writes the proudly clueless Kirsten Powers in the only half-blind New York Post. Into this breach steps the London Times. What has attracted the paper to the story, however late in the day, was the failure of some supportive fundraisers to muster enough cash up front to liberate a study of the Ayers-Obama connection by Oxford professor, Peter Millican. The intellectual property guardians at Oxford apparently won't take a down payment and an IOU.
What might just keep the London Times in this story is the transparency and consequence of the deception. As Joe the Builder has shown, one does not have to be an Oxford Don to find it.
CHANGE Jack Cashill: Breakthrough on the Authorship of Obama's 'Dreams' (Jun 2009) Within days of my going public last September with the speculation that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers helped Barack Obama write his acclaimed memoir, Dreams From My Father, I learned that I was not alone in that intuition.
Since then, I have received helpful contributions from serious people in at least five countries and any number of states and have integrated many of their observations into my ongoing narrative, summarized here. If you are unfamiliar with this research, please read this before going forward.
About a week ago, however, I heard from a new contributor. I will refer to him as "Mr. West." Like most contributors, he prefers to remain anonymous. The media punishment that Joe the Plumber received has much to do with this nearly universal reticence.
A week before that, I heard from another excellent contributor, Mr. Midwest. Their collective contribution should dispel the doubts of all but the willfully blind that Ayers played a substantial role, likely the primary role, in the writing of Dreams.
As a reminder, there is no reliable computer science for determining authorship. In assessing the value of the existing science, think polygraph, not DNA. Polygraph-level scholarship may suffice for harmless speculation about the authorship of Midsummer's Night Dream, but not for Dreams From My Father. Too much is at stake for the latter.
The experts in the field have told me to stick with old-fashioned literary detective work, and I have done just that. Mr, Midwest has helped. His most recent contribution is a good example of keen-eyed detection.
Going forward, I will be referring to five books. These include Ayers' 1993 To Teach, his 1997 A Kind and Just Parent (shorthand: Parent), his 2001 memoir Fugitive Days, and Obama's 1995 Dreams From My Father (Dreams). Casual critics of this research have repeated the canard that I attributed both Obama books, Dreams and the 2006 Audacity of Hope (Audacity), to Ayers. I never have. From the beginning, I have asserted that the two books appear to have two different authors, and so I will leave Audacity out of the equation until the end.
What Mr. Midwest noticed recently is that both Ayers in Parent and Obama in Dreams make reference to the poet Carl Sandburg. In itself, this is not a grand revelation. Let us call it a C-level match. Obama and Ayers seem to have shared the same library in any case. Both talk of reading the books of Malcolm X, James Baldwin, Langston Hughes, W.E.B. Dubois and Frantz Fanon among others. In fact, each misspells "Frantz" as "Franz."
Ayers and Obama, however, go beyond citing Sandburg. Each quotes the opening line of his poem "Chicago." From Dreams:
He poured himself more hot water. "What do you know about Chicago anyway?"
I thought a moment. "Hog butcher to the world," I said finally.
From Parent:
"At the turn of the century, Chicago had a population of a million people and was a young and muscular city - hub of commerce and industry, the first skyscraper city, home of the famous world exposition, "hog butcher to the world" - bursting with energy."
This I would call a B-level match. What raises it up a notch to an A-level match is the fact that both misquote "Chicago," and they do so in exactly the same way. The poem actually opens, "Hog butcher for the world."
Last week, the first email I received from Mr. West had in the message box "759 striking similarities between Dreams and Ayers' works." This claim seemed so outsized I did not take it seriously. When I was unable to open the documents, I emailed Mr. West back, asked him to reformat, and then forgot about the email. He resent his documents a few days later.
This time I was able to open them and was promptly blown away. Mr. West's analysis was systematic, comprehensive, and utterly, totally, damning. Of the 759 matches, none were frivolous. All were C-level or above, and I had no doubt of their authenticity. I had been gathering many of them in my own reserve waiting for a book-length opportunity to make my case. Mr. West had done the heavy lifting. He even indexed his matches. This represented months of works. As I learned, he had been patiently gathering material since November when he first began building on my own research.
I read through all 759 matches and culled out those that I would consider B-Level or above. There were 180 of these. As a control, I tested them against my own 2006 book Sucker Punch, like Dreams and Fugitive Days a memoir that deals extensively with race. In that I am closer to Ayers in age, race, education, family and cultural background than Obama is, our styles should have had more chance of matching. They don't. Of the 180 examples, I matched, strictly speaking, on six. Even by the most generous standard, we matched on only sixteen.
Let me just cite a few matches between Ayers' work and Dreams that I found intriguing. Rather astonishingly, as Mr. West points out, at least six of the characters in Dreams have the same names as characters in Ayers' books: Malik, Freddy, Tim, Coretta, Marcus, and "the old man." Many of the stories involving these characters in Dreams seem as contrived as their names.
In one instance, Obama reflects on his own first days as a ten year-old at his Hawaiian prep school, a transition complicated by the presence of "Coretta," the only other black student in the class.
When the other students accuse Obama of having a girlfriend, Obama shoves Coretta and insists that she leave him alone. Although "his act of betrayal" buys him a reprieve from the other students, Obama understands that he "had been tested and found wanting."
Ayers relates a parallel story in Parent. He tells of a useful reading assignment from the 1992 book, The Kind of Light That Shines on Texas, by black author Reginald McKnight. The passage in question deals with the travails of Clint, the first black student in a newly integrated school, who repudiates Marvin, the only other black boy in the school. Upon reflection, Clint thinks, "I was ashamed. Ashamed for not defending Marvin and ashamed that Marvin even existed."
As Mr. Midwest pointed out in a recent missive, Ayers' interest in education bleeds into Dreams. The tip-off once again is the contrived name, in this case "Asante Moran," likely an homage to the Afro-centric educator, Molefi Kete Asante. Moran lectures Obama and his pal "Johnny" on the nature of public education.
"The first thing you have to realize," he said, looking at Johnnie and me in turn, "is that the public school system is not about educating black children. Never has been. Inner-city schools are about social control. Period."
"Social control" is an Ayers' bugaboo. "The message to Black people was that at any moment and for any reason whatsoever your life or the lives of your loved ones could be randomly snuffed out," he writes in Fugitive Days. "The intention was social control through random intimidation and unpredictable violence."
In Dreams, "Moran" elaborates on the fate of the black student, "From day one, what's he learning about? Someone else's history. Someone else's culture. Not only that, this culture he's supposed to learn is the same culture that's systematically rejected him, denied his humanity."
If this character were real, and Obama had actually met him, there would be no reason to phony up his name. In fact, however, Moran is spouting exactly the same educational philosophy that Ayers does in To Teach.
"Underneath it all," Ayers says of standard school textbooks, "the social studies and literature texts reflected and promoted white supremacy. There were no pictures or photographs of African Americans . . . there was throughout an assumed superiority and smug celebration of the status quo."
Both authors, by the way, use the phrase "beneath the surface" repeatedly. And what they find beneath the surface, of course, is the disturbing truth about power disparities in the real America, which each refers to as an "imperial culture." Speaking of which, both insist that "knowledge" is "power" and seem consumed by the uses or misuses of power. Ayers, in fact, evokes the word "power" and its derivatives 75 times in Fugitive Days, Obama 83 times in Dreams.
More exotically, both authors evoke images of a "boy" riding on the backs of a "water buffalo" and prodding the beast not just with sticks, but with "bamboo sticks." Ayers places his boy in Vietnam. Obama puts his in Indonesia.
Both authors link Indonesia with Vietnam. In each case, clueless officials - plural -- with the "State Department" try to explain how the march of communism through "Indochina" will specifically imperil "Indonesia." The Ayers account, however, at least sounds vaguely real. The Obama account sounds like an Ayers' memory imposed on Obama's mother. She allegedly discussed these geo-political strategy sessions in Indonesia with her pre-teen son.
Ayers and his radical friends were obsessed with Vietnam. It defined them and still does. To reflect their superior insight into that country, they have shown a tendency to use "Mekong Delta" as synecdoche, the part that indicates the whole.
In Fugitive Days, for instance, Ayers envisions "a patrol in the Mekong Delta" when he conjures up an image of Vietnam. Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn, pontificated about "a hamlet called My Lai" in a 1998 interview, but to flash her radical chops, she located it "in the middle of the Mekong Delta," which is in reality several hundred miles from My Lai.
Given Obama's age, "Mekong Delta" was not likely a part of his vocabulary, but that does not stop him from writing about "the angry young men in Soweto or Detroit or the Mekong Delta." Ayers, of course, would also have had a much deeper connection than Obama to "Detroit," whose historic riot took place shortly before Obama's sixth birthday. Ayers worked in Detroit the year after those same riots.
Returning to the exotic, in his Indonesian backyard Obama discovered two "birds of paradise" running wild as well as chickens, ducks, and a "yellow dog with a baleful howl."
In Fugitive Days, there is even more "howling" than there is in Dreams. Ayers places his "birds of paradise" in Guatemala. He places his ducks and dogs together in a Vietnamese village being swept by merciless Americans. In Parent, he talks specifically about a "yellow dog." And he uses the word "baleful" to describe an "eye" in Fugitive Days. For the record, "baleful" means "threatening harm." I had to look it up.
Ayers is fixated with faces, especially eyes. He writes of "sparkling" eyes, "shining" eyes, "laughing" eyes, "twinkling" eyes, eyes "like ice," and people who are "wide-eyed" and "dark-eyed."
As it happens, Obama is also fixated with faces, especially eyes. He also writes of "sparkling" eyes, "shining" eyes, "laughing" eyes, "twinkling" eyes, and uses the phrases "wide-eyed" and "dark-eyed." Obama adds "smoldering eyes," "smoldering" being a word that he and Ayers inject repeatedly. Obama also uses the highly distinctive phrase "like ice," in his case to describe the glinting of the stars.
If Ayers is fixated on eyes, about eyebrows he is positively fetishistic. There are six references to "eyebrows" in Fugitive Days -- bushy ones, flaring ones, arched ones, black ones and, stunningly, seven references in Dreams -- heavy ones, bushy ones, wispy ones. It is the rare memoirist who talks about eyebrows at all.
On three occasions in Dreams, Obama speaks of people with "round" faces. On four occasions in Fugitive Days, Ayers does the same. Both speak of "grim-faced" people, people with "soft" faces, and, most unusually, people with "tight" faces.
Both Ayers and Obama describe acquaintances who smile like a "Cheshire cat." Some of their characters have a countenance -- grin, squint, or scowl -- that is "perpetual." Others are "suppressing" their smiles or their grins.
To this point, I have just skimmed the 759 items in the bill of particulars in my case against Obama's literary genius. Not familiar with the term "bill of particulars?" Uncertain myself, I looked that one up too. It means a list of written statements made by a party to a court proceeding. Ayers and Obama each refer knowingly to a "bill of particulars." Doesn't everyone?
The answer, of course, is no. In Audacity of Hope, Obama does not use this phrase or most of the distinctive words or combinations of words in Dreams. In Audacity, for instance, there are virtually no descriptions of faces or eyes, and the few that the author does use are flat and clichéd -- like "brave face" or "sharp-eyed." In Dreams, seven different people "frown," twelve "grin," and six "squint." In Audacity, no more than one person makes any of these gestures.
Mr. West independently came to the same conclusion that I did, namely that Ayers was not meaningfully involved in Audacity. These two Obama books almost assuredly had different primary authors. What should be transparent to any literary critic is that the author of Audacity lacked the style and skill of the author of Dreams. There are a few pockets in Audacity that evoke the spirit of Dreams but without the same grace.
A likely suspect for these imitative passages, perhaps the whole of Audacity, is Obama's young speechwriter, Jon Favreau. Favreau joined the Obama team in 2005, time enough to play that role. The London Guardian reports that Favreau carries Dreams wherever he goes and can "conjure up his master's voice as if an accomplished impersonator." If so, in Audacity he played the classic role of the ghostwriter -- one who absorbs his client's thoughts and relates them in a refined version of his client's voice.
Bill Ayers was no one's ghostwriter. The now overwhelming evidence strongly suggests that he used the frame of Obama's life and finished it off with his own ideas, his own biases, his own experiences, his own passions, his own friends, even his own romances, all of this toned down just enough to keep Obama viable as a potential candidate.
I would argue that Ayers played Cyrano to Obama's Christian. His personal history was too ugly for him to woo Roxane/America himself. But Obama -- "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," as Joe Biden reminded us -- could and did make America's heart melt.(Source: American Thinker: Jack Cashill.)
Who Wrote Audacity of Hope? (Jul 2009) In previous articles on the subject of President Obama's writing skills, I have focused on his 1995 memoir, Dreams From My Father, not his 2006 book, Audacity of Hope for one reason: Dreams, according to esteemed British author Jonathan Raban and others, captures Obama's "authentic voice."
On the strength of Dreams, Raban called Obama "the best writer to occupy the White House since Lincoln." Raban is in good company. "I was astonished by his ability to write, to think, to reflect, to learn and turn a good phrase," said Nobel prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison of Dreams. "I was very impressed. This was not a normal political biography.''
Although Audacity has received respectful reviews, it has not gotten the raves Dreams has. The New York Times describes Audacity "as much more of a political document. Portions of the volume read like outtakes from a stump speech."
Still, despite the book's "flabby platitudes," the Times assures its readers that "enough of the narrative voice in this volume is recognizably similar to the one in Dreams From My Father." Without intending to, the Times likely captured the thinking behind the creation of Audacity.
If portions of Audacity sound like outtakes from stump speeches, it is because they are outtakes from stump speeches. This can be proved. What cannot be proved, but what seems likely, is that Obama included just "enough of the narrative voice" from Dreams to maintain continuity between the two books.
The question remains -- who provided that narrative voice? In the criticism of my last two American Thinker articles, only the Washington Post addressed the central issue, and it did so facetiously: "The book [Dreams] is beautifully written and yet, in Cashill's opinion, Obama is - and always was - a crappy (his word, not mine) writer."
Critics, please forget for a minute the parallel styles, words, phrases, images, and anecdotes shared by Dreams and Bill Ayers' books. Forget for a minute Bill Ayers. The three existing samples of Obama's prose before Dreams -- the 1983 article "Breaking the War Mentality," the 1988 article "Why Organize," and his unsigned 1990 Harvard Law Review case note -- are proof enough that Barack Obama is, in fact, a crappy writer.
Consider the following sentence from "Breaking The War Mentality," an article the 21 year-old Obama wrote for Columbia's weekly news magazine, Sundial, in March 1983:
The belief that moribund institutions, rather than individuals are at the root of the problem, keep SAM's energies alive.
The noun, "belief," and the verb, "keep," don't agree -- one of an appalling five such noun-verb mismatches in the essay -- and the punctuation is fully random. More problematically, the word choice sucks all logic out of the sentence. In the previous paragraph, Obama had warned his readers about the "the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country."
In this paragraph, the reader is told that these same military institutions are "moribund" -- that is "nearly dead." How their debilitated state keeps the "energies" of the Students Against Militarism (SAM) "alive" is apparently left to the reader's imagination.
Obama is no untutored ghetto kid. He wrote this after eight years at Hawaii's best prep school and after four years at two good universities.
In my 25-year career in advertising and publishing I have had to review the portfolios of at least a thousand professional writers. I can tell within three paragraphs whether a writer deserves a second look. Based on any of his pre-Dreams samples, Obama would not have made the first cut. I never would have hired him. No one would have. He is simply a crappy writer.
I have also taught writing at enough levels and under enough different circumstances to know that even the best teacher cannot transform a crappy writer into a great writer. The best that the teacher can hope for is a semi-crappy writer who does not make too many grammatical errors.
Between Harvard and Dreams, Obama had no extra training. In a 2006 article, written while he was still seething, liberal publisher Peter Osnos tells the story of what did happen during those lost years.
According to Osnos, the New York Times did a profile of Obama when elected the first black leader of the Harvard Law Review. The article prompted literary agent Jane Dystel to have Obama submit a book proposal to an imprint of Simon & Schuster. The publisher liked the proposal and advanced him about $125,000. "Several years passed," Osnos writes, "and Obama was too busy finishing law school and embarking on his career to get the book done." Simon & Schuster then canceled the contract, and Obama likely had to pay at least some of it back.
Dystel then approached Times Book at Random House where Osnos was publisher, and he advanced Obama $40,000 more. The newly inspired Obama promptly turned in what Time Magazine has called "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." Osnos believes Obama wrote the book himself, but he was in no position to know that. My publisher has to accept on faith that I am writing my own books. Even my agent does.
Obama's memoir was published in June 1995. In January of that same magical year, Ayers had chosen Obama, then a junior lawyer at a minor law firm, to chair the multi-million dollar Chicago Annenberg Challenge grants. In the fall of 1995, Ayers and his wife, Weatherwoman Bernardine Dohrn, launched Obama's ascent to political stardom with a fundraiser in their Chicago home.
Dreams sold modestly in 1995, and the rights to it eventually reverted to Random House's Crown Books Division, which made a killing on the book after Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.
After being elected senator in November 2004, Obama replaced the now "furious" Dystel and her 15 percent cut with a powerful D.C. attorney who charged only by the hour. Some time before his swearing in as senator, Obama signed a two-book deal with Crown for somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million. Although an Obama fan, Osnos was dismayed by Obama's "ruthlessness" and his "questionable judgment about using public service as a personal payday."
In October 2006, Audacity debuted to kind reviews and huge sales. Despite Obama's "unforgiving Senate schedule and periodic bouts of writer's block," he had been able to write a 216-page book without any acknowledged writing help in what was likely an 18-month window. This was the same writer who blew a $125,000 advance because he was unable to produce a book during "several" much less hectic years, the same writer who between his 1995 masterpiece and Audacity had written nothing deeper than a column for a community newsletter.
How did Obama do it? "I usually wrote at night after my Senate day was over, and after my family was asleep -- from 9:30 p.m. or so until 1 a.m," he told interviewer Daphne Durham of Amazon. "I would work off an outline -- certain themes or stories that I wanted to tell -- and get them down in longhand on a yellow pad. Then I'd edit while typing in what I'd written."
In fact, the legitimacy of this interview is as dubious as the legitimacy of the book. Obama's answer to Durham's question. "What inspires you", shows up word-for-word (70 words) in the promotional blurb for Audacity. The explanation was legitimate enough, however, for Time Magazine.
"His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads," wrote Jay Newton-Small two months before the November 2008 election. "This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books -- Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope -- staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet."
Little of this rings true. Obama's oldest daughter was born in 1998, three years after Dreams was published. The late night story line was likely contrived to explain how he could have written Audacity despite the "unforgiving" schedule of a new senator.
One of my more diligent correspondents, whom I call Mr. West, has been doing some intriguing analysis of Audacity. He had earlier sent me an indexed compendium of "759" distinctive words and phrases that appear in both Dreams and Bill Ayers' books.
Mr. West has since compared Dreams and Audacity. By a generous count, Audacity matches Dreams in only 140 of the 759 word selections. "Many of these were words were just used one time in Audacity and in a different context," writes Mr. West. He was surprised too by the words and phrases that he expected to find in Audacity but did not. His conclusion, "Ayers was absolutely not involved in Audacity."
Mr. West noted also that when Dreams-like words appear in Audacity, they suddenly emerge in clusters. In the passage that follows, words and phrases that appear in both Dreams and Audacity are in bold italics:
Slowly, the senior senator rose from his seat, a slender man with a still-thick snowy mane, watery blue eyes, and a sharp, prominent nose. For a moment he stood in silence, steadying himself with his cane, his head turned upward, eyes fixed on the ceiling. Then he began to speak, in somber, measured tones, a hint of the Appalachians like a knotty grain of wood beneath polished veneer. I don't recall the specifics of his speech, but I remember the broad themes, cascading out from the well of the Old Senate Chamber in a rising, Shakespearean rhythm
This is the kind of stretch that the Times rightly describes as "recognizably similar" to the "narrative voice" of Dreams. To my ear, however, it sounds forced and a little stilted and reads not so much like a passage from Dreams as an imitation of such a passage.
Mr. West also compared Audacity to various stump speeches made by Obama during the time Audacity was being written. The plagiarism here is inarguable. Mr. West lists 38 passages that appear virtually word for word in Obama speeches given in 2005 or 2006 and in Audacity.
The first example comes from a speech Obama gave on October 25, 2005, the second from Audacity.
. . . those who work in the field know what reforms really work: a more challenging and rigorous curriculum with emphasis on math, science, and literacy skills. Longer hours and more days to give kids the time and attention they need to learn.
And in fact we already have hard evidence of reforms that work: a more challenging and rigorous curriculum with emphasis on math, science, and literacy skills; longer hours and more days to give children the time and sustained attention they need to learn.
By 2006, Obama appears to have been reading speeches that have been lifted in full from the text of Audacity. The first example comes from a June 28, 2006 speech, the second from Audacity.
Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
The single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans is not between men and women, or between those who reside in so-called red states and those who reside in blue states, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.'
Of course, all that this proves is that whoever wrote Obama's speeches wrote large sections of Audacity, perhaps all of it, and this is only an issue if someone other than Obama wrote his speeches.
As we are seeing, though, falsehoods have a way of compounding themselves. When Rachel Klayman of Crown pulled Dreams from the vaults and put it back in circulation, she unknowingly set in motion a series of fabrications, beginning with the foundational myth that Obama is a literary genius. To sustain that myth, Obama's enablers have to make us believe that he also wrote Audacity by himself as well as most of his speeches, staying up unto 1 A.M. each night to do so.
The emergence of Jon Favreau, whom Time Magazine calls a "wunderkind wordsmith," complicates this scenario. After a February 2009 speech to Congress, the Washington Post ran a photo of Obama holding the speech, on the first page of which was clearly printed, "Draft 2/24/09 12pm...Favreau/Rhodes." It even included Favreau's phone number.
According to Wikipedia, "Favreau was hired as Obama's speechwriter shortly after Obama's election to the United States Senate. Obama and Favreau grew close, and Obama has referred to him as his ‘mind reader.'" Obama thought highly enough of Favreau to make him his chief speechwriter for the presidential campaign. The London Guardian reports that Favreau carries Dreams wherever he goes and can "conjure up his master's voice as if an accomplished impersonator."
Of the thirty-eight speeches during Favreau's tenure that found their way into Audacity are we to believe that he wrote none of them? It is much more likely that he wrote all of them. Yes, Obama may have written his thoughts down in longhand, but why would he not have given those notes to his gifted young speechwriter to polish?
Here is what I believe happened. Obama knew he had a problem on his hands when Dreams was republished in 2004. He recruited Ayers to write the (post-modernist) preface to the 2004 edition, but once he was elected to the Senate they both knew that Ayers was poison. To achieve continuity, Ayers, I believe, wrote the prologue to Audacity. It is the best-written part of the book. From here, Favreau took over. An "accomplished impersonator," he labored to make extended passages of Audacity sound like Dreams. It was a good effort, but he simply does not write as well as Ayers does.
hose who think Ayers cannot write either have not read him or do not have the wherewithal to judge him. In a recent critique of us "Internet zanies," Republican bigwig Ken Blackwell (why the attacks from the right?) observes, "Bill Ayers' thoughts have all the leaden quality of most deadening Marxist screeds. Ayers' writing you can't pick up; Obama's you can't put down." No, Ken, Ayers writes very well indeed. Fugitive Days is a better book than Dreams.
To be sure, Obama does not mention Ayers in the acknowledgments section of Dreams. In a similar spirit he slights Favreau in Audacity. He merely thanks a number of his Senate staff, "including Pete Rouse, Karen Kornbluh, Mike Strautmanis, Jon Favreau, Mark Lippert, Joshua DuBois, and especially Robert Gibbs and Chris Lu" for reading the manuscript, but of course, "on their own time."
I imagine that Favreau made his contribution on his own time as well. (Source: American Thinker: Jack Cashill.)
Peter Millican, an Oxford scholar who developed the Signature system that was used in part of the analysis, does not share Jack Cashill's view.
In Barack Obama's Dreams from My Father: The Story of an Unlikely Hypothesis (and a Fine Book), Millican does a breakdown of his refutation of Cashill's hypothesis. He stated, "To sum up, I have found no evidence for Cashill's ghostwriting hypothesis, and rather strong (albeit limited) evidence against. Note, moreover, that the discussion above is all fought on his own chosen ground - analyses and literary patterns that he himself has cited as likely to tell in his favour. It is impossible to know without searching carefully what other evidence against his hypothesis might turn up if one were to look for it. But at least we must judge it as extremely unlikely, and indeed so far unsubstantiated. Moreover given its small initial probability (as a story that was always intrinsically unlikely - it would be very surprising if true), and the evidence already seen, I cannot imagine how the hypothesis could be rendered credible by further examination of the texts. Of course that doesn't mean it's impossible (for example if systematic comparative studies using Yavelow's system were to yield genuinely exceptional results), but I don't currently believe that anything short of documentary proof of Ayers's involvement will take the case further."
He stated in the Sunday Times online :
Last Sunday I received an urgent call from Bob, a man close to a Republican congressman in the American west. He wanted to enlist my services to prove a scandalous allegation against Barack Obama, which would surely affect his prospects in the forthcoming election. Namely, that his famous 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, on which so much of his reputation was built, was in fact written largely by Bill Ayers, a Vietnam-era domestic terrorist.
Many Republican attacks, in the mainstream media, websites and blogs, have focused on this connection, described by Sarah Palin as Obama's "palling around with terrorists". The new scandal held the promise not only of proving that Obama was a pal of Ayers, but even that he was, in a sense, Ayers's creation, groomed for high office by his mentor's ghost-writing hand.
Viewed from Britain all this seems like fantasy, but in some US circles it is taken very seriously indeed. If the charge against Obama could be made to stick, with objective evidence of Ayers's involvement in his famous book, then perhaps it could sway significant numbers of voters back to the Republican side.
So where do I come in, an Oxford philosopher and 18th-century scholar? Well, until three years ago I taught at Leeds University in a job that combined philosophy with computing. While there I wrote several software systems (available online) designed to make the study of computing more attractive and relevant for students in the humanities.
Since October 2005, I have been Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at Hertford College, Oxford. Previously I was at the University of Leeds for 20 years, employed both in Philosophy and Computing. I retain a keen interest in Computing, which I see as closely related to Philosophy in many ways. The website www.philocomp.net collects together various software systems and other materials that I have developed to emphasise these links, which embrace huge areas of philosophical interest such as Logic, Linguistics, Philosophy of Mind, and Philosophy of Science, as well as others (e.g. historical and textual research) in which the computer can provide an invaluable research tool.
My philosophical interests are broad, though my recent research has tended to focus on David Hume, with much of it collected on the website www.davidhume.org together with various bibliographic materials that I hope to build up in due course. I am currently Co-Editor of the journal Hume Studies, and recently produced a new edition of Hume's..., in which I try to put Hume's aims in context with those of his various predecessors (Descartes, Hobbes, Malebranche, Locke, Berkeley etc.) and to explain the fundamental importance of his thought, which I believe to be of abiding significance in today's world. (Source: Peter Millican.)
(2003-), The Signature Stylometric System, developed to enable non-specialists to explore stylometric concepts (e.g. to assist with questions of disputed authorship). The package documentation is limited at present to a PowerPoint presentation, but a comprehensive on-line help file is planned in due course. (Source: Oxford: Peter Millican.)
One of these, called Signature, performs "stylometric" analysis for literary detection. The idea is that by analysing different texts one can try to identify the distinctive authorial fingerprint or stylistic "signature" of each writer and thus decide questions of disputed authorship. Did St Paul write the Epistle to the Hebrews? Did Shakespeare write Edward III? Who wrote various anonymous political works, such as the Federalist Papers of 1787 or the 1996 novel Primary Colors?
Investigators have hoped to answer all of these questions – and many others – by such means and have sometimes been very successful (although more often wildly overoptimistic and naively uncritical).
My Signature system acquired some publicity this year through its involvement in a heated debate about Coleridge's alleged authorship of a translation of Goethe's Faust. So some Republicans were keen to make use of my expertise to help them in their quest to unmask Ayers as the hidden puppet master behind the Obama of 1995.
The person who came up with this strange theory is Jack Cashill, an American author who claimed to find striking similarities between Dreams from My Father and Ayers's 2001 memoir Fugitive Days.
The trouble with these sorts of claims is that they are far too easy to make: take any two substantial memoirs from the same era and you are likely to be able to pick out a fair number of passages that have some similarities. Unless the similarities are really close (and they weren't), just listing them makes no case at all, even if it might be enough to persuade some readers. Cashill and friends – who were convinced but aware that more evidence would be needed to convince others – enlisted teams of analysts to try to give the theory a solid statistical basis. All of these analyses supposedly delivered positive results, but they seem badly flawed.
One pair of university engineers tested frequencies of words in the two books against a "random control"; but the book chosen for this role was a 1919 road novel which just happened to be easily available on the web. Hardly surprising, then, that the two contemporary memoirs came out relatively similar: they were always likely to be closer to each other than to a novel written 80 years before.
Another "team" – consisting of a private engineering consultant – used my own Signature software but didn't get beyond the first primitive test for word-length frequencies (proportions of one-letter, two-letter, three-letter words, etc). Although he did rigorous statistics with more appropriate "controls", his results were rather weak. But even if they had been stronger, using such limited data is like trying to argue that two houses were constructed by the same builder purely on the basis that they contain roughly similar proportions of different bricks.
Finally, the third analysis that I have seen used far more sophisticated measures, built into a proprietary software system for helping aspiring writers to develop their style. But it records no "control" measurements at all, so the results produced are impossible to assess.
The author of the analysis describes some of his results as "striking", but this looks very exaggerated to me. Without any comparable statistics involving other texts, we have no way of assessing their true significance. So his claim to have made "a strong case for the likelihood that the author of Fugitive Days ghostwrote Dreams from My Father" is completely unsubstantiated.
Bob – the man who brought me into all this – seemed sincerely interested in getting to the truth about Cashill's dramatic allegation. He supplied me with the relevant texts and a number of appropriate "controls".
Some preliminary tests, using various data measures and a range of powerful statistical facilities that were recently added to Signature, indicated nothing that would give Obama any cause for concern. So I felt that any analysis I did would be far more likely to put an end to the story than to substantiate it, by providing objective data against what looked like partisan allegations.
The Republicans were apparently keen to press for a full-scale investigation, which would take a good deal of my time but for which they were prepared to pay through Oxford University Consulting's personal consultancy arrangements.
Oxford University Consulting, on my behalf, insisted quite properly that any such arrangement would have to be agreed before the results were known: there could be no question of carrying out an analysis that would be paid for only if the results came out in their favour. And I insisted that the analysis, once produced, would have to be in the public domain and thus made available to the Democrats also.
Having got to this stage, with texts and controls carefully prepared and special facilities added to Signature for the purpose, my little adventure into US politics ended. I was left with the impression that payment for propaganda was fine; but payment for objective research was quite a different matter.
Maybe one day I'll go back and do the analysis in detail, but I doubt it. I would rather spend my time on serious research questions than on improbable theories proposed with negligible support. (Source: Sunday Times online.)
CHANGE Author Christopher Anderson's book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage, confirms Bill Ayers helped Obama write Dreams of My Father (Sep 2009) Confirming the literary detective work of WND columnist Jack Cashill prior to the 2008 election, author Christopher Andersen says in a newly released book that former domestic terrorist William Ayers helped Barack Obama write the president's highly acclaimed memoir "Dreams from My Father." Obama's 1995 book won the 2006 Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album and drew praise from Time magazine, which called it "the best-written memoir ever produced by an American politician." (SITE NOTE: However, Ron Radosh at Pajamas Media makes an excellent point: "Most reviewers, and readers, will probably read this in passing and go on. As far as I know, no reviewers to date seemed to have noticed this. All they seem to have noticed is the one quote from Michelle Obama to her husband when he was considering whether to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket: "Do you really want Bill and Hillary just down the hall from you in the White House?" And since the reviews of the book have not been particularly good, it might disappear from the public's notice fairly soon. Now Andersen gives no sources or names; the Obamas did not cooperate with him. Skeptics will argue that we have no way of knowing whether his claims can be verified, and we have no way of knowing the veracity of those he interviewed. Who, for example, was the Hyde Park neighbor he spoke with? Some might even argue that he reached his conclusion after reading Cashill's original blog, without citing it. Andersen faces the same credibility problem Bob Woodward faces, since he is often charged with making outrageous charges in some of his books without offering any proof that conversations he could not have been privy to took place. But Woodward's use of such a technique never has hurt his reputation. After all, he is Bob Woodward. Reviewers of Andersen's book have had no compunction in labeling much of what he writes as pure "gossip.")
But since July 2008, Cashill has unveiled in nearly two dozen columns, summarized here, his compelling evidence that the unrepentant co-founder of the radical Weather Underground group – dismissed by Obama during the campaign as "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood" – shaped and refined the book with his exceptional writing skill and radical ideas. Cashill, who acquired a copy of Andersen's new book today, told WND the author "lays out the scenario just as I envisioned it."
Andersen, in "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of a Marriage," writes that Obama was faced with a deadline with the Time Books division of Random House to submit his manuscript after already having canceled a contract with Simon & Schuster. Confronted with the threat of a second failure, his wife, Michelle, suggested he seek the help of "his friend and Hyde Park neighbor Bill Ayers."
Obama had taped interviews with relatives to flesh out his family history, and those "oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes, were given to Ayers," writes Andersen. The author quotes a neighbor in the Hyde Park area of Chicago where Obama and Ayers lived, who says of the two, "Everyone knew they were friends and that they worked on various projects together." "It was no secret. Why would it be? People liked them both," the neighbor said, according to Andersen.
Andersen also has written "marriage portraits" of George and Laura Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and John and Jackie Kennedy. Among his other books are "Somewhere in Heaven: The Remarkable Love Story of Dana and Christopher Reeve," "Barbra: The Way She Is," "Sweet Caroline: Last Child of Camelot" and "After Diana: William, Harry, Charles, and the Royal House of Windsor."
Andersen writes:
In the end, Ayers's contribution to Barack's "Dreams from My Father" would be significant – so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing.
Andersen concludes, "Thanks to help from the veteran writer Ayers, Barack would be able to submit a manuscript to his editors at Times Books."
Andersen relied on inside sources, quite possibly Michelle Obama, to describe how "Dreams" was published, Cashill says. Andersen cites Cashill as a source, but Cashill points out in a fresh WND column today (23 Sep) that Andersen "clearly has access to inside information that I did not have." "His level of detail on the mechanics of the transmission goes beyond anything that I could have discovered on my own," Cashill writes.
Cashill pointed out in a column last year that in contrast to "Dreams," the Obama writing samples unearthed before 1995 "are pedestrian and uninspired."
"There is no precedent for this kind of literary transformation," Cashill wrote. "It is as if a high 90s golfer suddenly showed up with his PGA card – with no known practice rounds in between."
The evidence Cashill had gathered to that point, he said, "severely tests Obama's claim of a superficial relationship with the self-declared 'communist' Ayers. This appears to be a conscious and consequential deception."
'That's a myth'
Cashill noted in a column in May this year that Ayers was confronted at a Baltimore book-signing by a Washington Times online editor with the question of his alleged role in Obama's book.
In the encounter, which was captured on video, the Times' Kerry Picket asked Ayers if he had received any feedback from Obama on Ayers' latest book, "Race Course: Against White Supremacy."
Ayers asked rhetorically, "Why would I?"
Picket then asked, "Considering that you may have had a collaboration with 'Dreams of My Father.'"
Ayers' body language changed abruptly. Turning away from Picket, he replied curtly, "I never had a collaboration, no."
"No?" she persisted.
"That's a myth," said Ayers, ending the conversation.
Literary cabal
In an interview last night with the Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity (23 Sep), Andersen was asked to comment on his assertion that Ayers helped Obama write "Dreams." Hannity pointed to Andersen's observation that "the literary devices and themes" of the book "bear a jarring similarity to Ayers own writings." "They were good friends," Andersen affirmed, recalling that during the campaign Obama denied that fact. "There was a literary cabal there in Chicago," Andersen continued. "They were all giving each other quotes, blurbs to promote their respective books." Hannity concluded rhetorically: "So (Obama) lied to the American people." Andersen appeared hesitant to concur, but conceded, "Well, you know, I think, well, let's face it, during that campaign I think he was doing some backpedaling, I'll be honest. And I think that, you know, Michelle probably recommended that he not emphasize the relationship with Ayers."
Forensic evidence
Last fall, Cashill commissioned an independent scientific comparative analysis of writings by Obama and Ayers to determine whether Ayers had a significant role in the writing of "Dreams." Cashill reported at least four different stylometric analysts supported his extensive forensic evidence. His experts included university professors from the U.S. and England in the statistical analysis of authorship, systems engineers, writers and Ph.D. literary analysts. Most, particularly professors at public universities, asked that their names not be revealed.One analyst said it was possible Ayers served as a "book doctor," drastically rewriting work Obama already had done.
Game changer
Cashill conjectures that the apparent revelation of Ayers part in Obama's book would have changed the outcome of the 2008 election. He recalls that Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball, mocked the Republicans' 2008 vice presidential candidate, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for needing a collaborator for her book, because "she can't write." Cashill comments in his column today that as "the Obama-as-Milli Vanilli story unfolds, Matthews and those willfully blind souls like him are in for a shock." "To admit that Obama needed a collaborator would have undercut his campaign for president," Cashill says, "and to reveal the name of that collaborator would have ended it." (Source: WND.) (SITE NOTE: A White House senior adviser (Axelrod) was scheduled to appear on CNN's "American Morning", but the White House rescinded the offer after the network booked author Christopher Andersen. Andersen's new book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage". Andersen appeared on CBS' "Early Show", but it's not clear if any booking offers to CBS were rescinded. During her interview with Anderson this morning, CNN's Kiran Chetry said, "We reached out to the White House for a response to the book. They declined comment and made it known that they weren't happy. (Source: Meida Bistro.) Anderson later said the White House simply needed time to review the book, but others state they still aren't happy with it. Anderson wants to paint the book as a portrait of the Obamas strong marriage -- versus the dysfunctional Clintons. It appears that he views this todo with Cashill a distraction in his book promotion.)
HOWEVER, David Weigel disagrees with Cashill that Christopher Anderson's book verifies his claims. Though he does not dispute that Anderson does show that Obama and Ayers were closer than Obama wants to publicize, he tries to destroy Anderson's claim -- without disputing that Anderson did say it. Though Cashill has had experts trying to analyze the books by word and phraseology similiarities, Weigel simply says he read "Dreams From My Father" and Ayers' "Fugitive Days" and states Obama is a better writer.
For more than a year, conservative journalist Jack Cashill has argued that a textual analysis of "Dreams From My Father" reveals that it was ghostwritten for Barack Obama by former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Because Cashill's analyses depended on comparisons of similar cliches and reading grade levels, they never got far out of WorldNetDaily. But Cashill is back, arguing that anecdotes in a new book by quick-turnaround author Christopher Andersen prove the Ayers-as-Obama-mastermind case. (SITE NOTE: Notice how Anderson who is described as a "bestselling author" is denigrated into "tabloid" writer and "quick-turnaround" author. Later David Freddoso is called a "bestselling author" to give him credibility. Cashill used the same technique to enhance Anderson's reputation in his column: "In his new book, "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage," Best-selling celebrity journalist, Christopher Andersen, has blown a huge hole in the Obama genius myth without intending to do so." In reality, the reviews of Anderson's book were not so spectacular, but Wikipedia does state he is in fact a best-selling author. As to Freddoso, he is a right-wing writer for the National Review, but he is hardly a "bestselling author." His book The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate was called a "badly-written hatchet job.")
The punchline? Andersen, who has written dozens of tabloid-style books, cites someone else for the Ayers research. He cites Jack Cashill. According to Cashill, Andersen's contribution to the Ayers storyline is the recollection of "a Hyde Park neighbor" who claims that Obama, struggling with the book, gave "oral histories, along with a partial manuscript and a truckload of notes" to Ayers and asked for advice. Any author or anyone who knows an author is probably chuckling at this point — passing unfinished portions to colleagues with some time and experience is pretty standard.
If you take Andersen on his word, it's true that this anecdote portrays Ayers and Obama as closer friends than they let on during the campaign. But it's a big leap from there to Cashill's characterization of "the Obama-as-Milli Vanilli story." Indeed, Andersen doesn't even report that story out. He writes that "Ayers' contribution to Barack's 'Dreams From My Father' would be significant – so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers's own writing." For that analysis he cites Cashill, whose previous analyses of "Dreams" been along these lines:
[W]hen the young Obama pontificates about "angry young men in Soweto or Detroit or the Mekong Delta," one hears the voice of someone much edgier and more aware than Obama. This reference reflects Ayers' worldview of America as a "marauding monster," one that terrorizes its own citizens of color just as it does those in the Third World.
Ayers does not define himself as being part of this monster but rather sees himself and his colleagues as saboteurs "behind enemy lines."
Curiously, Obama used the exact same phrase – "behind enemy lines" – to describe his own status while working in corporate America.
(SITE NOTE: A better quote is cited by Scott Kaufmann: "In the end, Ayers's contribution of Barack's Dreams from My Father would be significant -- so much so that the book's language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similiarity to Ayers's own writings. Even the caveat at the beginning of Dreams, in which Barack points out that he uses invented dialogue, embellished facts, composite characters, inaccurate chronology, and pseudonyms to create an "approximation" of reality, resembles Ayers's defense of the inaccuracies in his memoir Fugitive Days. In the foreword to his book, Ayers states that the book is merely a collection of his personal memories and "impressions."
"There was a good deal of literary back-scratching going on in Hyde Park," said writer Jack Cashill, who noted that a mutual friend of Barack and Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, thanked Ayers for helping him with his book Resurrecting Empire. Ayers, explained Cashill, "provided an informal editing service for like-minded friends in the neighborhood."
Cashill refutes that he ever collaborated with Anderson on his book and never even read the book before the controversy. He maintains that Anderson got his information on Ayers writing the book from other sources -- not him. However, this comes back full circle as Anderson does not cite names nor sources for his remarks.)
I think it's telling that when asked to expand on this in an interview with Sean Hannity, Andersen moved on. The most potentially explosive section of his book and he doesn't want to talk about it? Would he do that if his research consisted of more than citing the obsessive Cashill?
VIDEO: Fox News Hannity interview with Anderson
VIDEO: Breithbart TV (State of the Nation) interview with Anderson
I've read both "Dreams From My Father" and Ayers's memoir "Fugitive Days," which was published six years after "Dreams." Ayers's book is worse. He uses a William Faulkner trope and eschews quotation marks; Obama liberally reconstructs conversations with friends, even creating some composite characters to speak with. And Ayers's book is stuffed with howlers like "The Fourth of July bombs were all good bombs, except sometimes" and "I felt now at the epicenter of a resistance so wide and so deep that it would quickly disrupt the cotton wool of consciousness afflicting the country." The irony of the Ayers conspiracy is that Obama is a better writer than Ayers, whose pretentiousness oozes off the pages.
Cashill's column on the whole mess basically argues that the Ayers theory should wreck Obama's credibility, because "the left has been at pains to depict Republicans – George Bush and Sarah Palin most recently – as dunces because they were unable to write their own books." Of course, Obama wrote a second book, "The Audacity of Hope," 10 years after "Dreams," and so far no literary analysts have tried to prove it was ghosted by Jeremiah Wright. So it's really not clear to me what this conspiracy theory is supposed to prove. Might Ayers have programmed Obama by making suggestive references to the Mekong Delta in the den of a Hyde Park mansion 14 years ago? (SITE NOTE: Others -- NOT CASHILL -- state that "Dreams from My Father" and "Audacity of Hope" were written by two DIFFERENT authors because of dissimilar writing styles. A Obama speechwriter has been suggested as a candidate for one of the books. However, no one will commit to who wrote what. However, the biggest fault is that Anderson's book does NOT cite sources nor names -- and the Obamas did not cooperate with him so they were not the source. The book lacks credibility unless Anderson can come up with some documentation. Anderson states his documentation and names are right in the book. When "grilled" by liberal news shows, Anderson stated he had been doing journalism for 40 years and had written 29 books -- warning the interviewers that their "implications" were NOT going unnoticed nor unchallenged. Ron Radosh at Pajamas Media wrote: In this case, Barack Obama did not pull a Klein, especially since, as Cashill wrote, "no reviewer of note has so much as questioned Obama's role in the writing." That left him, a rather unknown figure, isolated in trying to make the case. And as he also acknowledged, his arguments, although many found them compelling, could not be proved to everyone's satisfaction. As he put it: "Shy of a confession by those involved, I will not be able to prove conclusively that Obama did not write this book. As shall be seen, however, there are only two real possibilities: one is that Obama experienced a near miraculous turnaround in his literary abilities; the second is that he had major editorial help, up to and including a ghostwriter.")
I'll quote David Freddoso, the author of the bestselling "The Case Against Barack Obama," whom I asked about this theory.
Cashill's stuff on this was a lot of crap, all conjecture and no concrete evidence.
(Source: Washington Independent.) (SITE NOTE: This is the typical diatribe that other Obama supporters immediately jumped on to discredit Cashill and Anderson. The main theme of Heigel's article is that it illustrates the Obama supporter technique of immediately going for character assasination rather than any PROOF. This article did NOT disprove anything -- nor did it try -- it only tries to obfuscate and spread a smoke screen. On the blogsphere, almost all progressive blogs posted almost identical articles.)
Obama Distanced Himself from Ayers Senator Obama's campaign managers stated that Obama strongly condemned the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. During the campaign, Obama tried to defuse the Ayers issue by condemning Ayers' past actions as "detestable." "The notion that ... me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense," Obama argued. This combined with the fact that Ayers is a respected educator at the University of Chicago as well as a noted community activist, has caused many people to discount the McCain-Palin attacks.
However, as we mentioned before, Obama's words do not fly. Remember that Obama claims in his campaign that he was only "acquainted" with Ayers and Dohrn, but evidence points out that there was a long continuing relationship between the two. Despite Obama's attempt to portray their relationship as a distant one, Ayers, in a new afterward to his book "Fugitive Days," describes Obama as a "neighbor and family friend." Ayers claims he was not a terrorist because he only bombed buildings -- regardless that there were people inside the buildings. He remains unrepentant for his anti-war acts claiming that the US government was murdering people and "he wished he had done more." This feeling also extends to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars of the present. (See: William Ayers background and Wikipedia.)
Though there is no direct links in the present time that can be proven, one does have suspicions because of the philosophical roots that both seem to share for a href=http://www.pjtv.com/ activism -- and the common denominator of shared friends and acquaintances. Ayers is a proud leftist revolutionary. His driving idea, in this phase of his career, is that the classroom is the frontline of the revolution. And when he was given the opportunity of a lifetime, a $150 million fund to be doled out as seed money for the kind of programs he thought would advance the cause, the guy brought in to run it was Barack Obama — with whom he worked closely on "change" in the schools for five years. Obama, of course, denies this. The jury is out -- though Palin's remarks that Obama "pals around with" terrorist friends seems essentially true -- the correct term should have been "former terrorist." Ayers is NOT a terrorist now -- though he does espouse some radical educational ideas.
But what we are REALLY waiting for is whether Obama as President comes out with the Ayers' educational philosophy of "social justice" where white America "owes" minorities improved educational benefits to make up for the years of neglect. In essence, white America and the rich are expected to pay substantial amounts to redress alleged past wrongs of society. A commitment to promoting "social justice" -- a polite word for socialism -- is practically a prerequisite in most of the nation's education schools today. (See BillAyers.org.) With Obama as President, there is a great fear that "social justice" and a social welfare state may be in the offing. On the campaign circuit in November, Obama voiced opinions on education very close to the Republican platform -- with some variations. However, we believe that Obama either shares or sympathizes with Ayers's views on education, society, and "social justice." The test will be what we see when Obama sets the education policies of his Presidency. Until then our opinion is suspended. (SITE NOTE: In Mar 2009, the GIVE Act (HR1388) was passed by the House containing a FEMA scheme that would be the basis for a National Service Reserve Corps -- something that people feared was the name for Obama's Civilian Security Defense Force. In the massive package for volunteerism in America was aimed at education for minorities -- the exact thing the Bill Ayers espoused.)
Allegations that Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn involved in 1970 San Francisco bombing (Mar 2009) Leaders of San Francisco's police officers union have accused Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, of taking part in the 1970 bombing of a city police station that killed a sergeant. On Feb. 16, 1970, a bomb placed on a window ledge of Park Station killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell and injured eight other officers, the Chronicle reported. The union said it had not been in contact with investigators nor did it have new evidence, but it cited Larry Grathwohl, who works with the conservative organization America’s Survival of Maryland and claims that he infiltrated Weather Underground as an FBI informant and heard Ayers confess, the Chronicle reported. “There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn … are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station,” the Feb. 24 letter reads, according to the Chronicle.
The union leveled the charge in a letter to a conservative organization lobbying for arrests in the case, but said it had not been in contact with investigators and had no new evidence related to the bombing, which killed Sgt. Brian McDonnell. Instead, the union cited information from a former Bay Area resident, Larry Grathwohl, who is working with the conservative group, America's Survival Inc. of Maryland. Grathwohl asserts that he infiltrated the Weather Underground as an FBI informant and heard Ayers confess to a role in the bombing. Ayers has denied any involvement in the bombing and, in January, called Grathwohl a "paid dishonest person" in an interview with The Chronicle. (Source: Marathon Pundit.)
Allegations that presidential pal Bill Ayers was involved in the murder of a San Francisco policeman appear to be running into something of a gag order from at the Department of Justice. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Justice Department and the San Francisco Police Department have contacted the San Francisco Police Officers Association and told them not to talk about the Ayers case.
Cliff Kincaid's March 12 National Press Club press conference apparently hit a nerve. As mentioned in the AT article of Wednesday, March 18, the Police Association had sent out a letter of support to Kincaid and his Campaign for Justice for Victims of Weather Underground Terrorism, observing:
There are irrefutable and compelling reasons to believe that Bill Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn, members of the terrorist group 'Weather Underground', are largely responsible for the bombing of Park Police Station and other police stations throughout the United States during their 'tour of terror' in the late 1960s and early 1970s. And asking that:
...every possible effort be made to bring all evidence concerning this crime and all other crimes of urban terrorism perpetrated by the ‘Weather Underground' against the police officers of our great country to the forefront in a court of law.
According to the Chronicle:
Police Officers Association President Gary Delagnes confirmed that his union got a call from federal investigators telling them they had an "active investigation and should not be commenting on the case."
Delagnes said the letter was meant only to show support for the family of the slain officer, Sgt. Brian McDonnell, and to help them "bring closure to the case."
Right. And what is the matter with that? So why on earth would the Justice Department want them to keep their mouths shut? Exactly what did they say that would damage an "active investigation?" Are they claiming that no one knows the book is still open on that case? Are the statements above likely to compromise an "active investigation" if indeed it is truly active?
Mr. Holder, as Shakespeare said: "me thinks thou dost protest too much." So out with it! What, or who are you really trying to protect? Why didn't the Justice Department contact Kincaid's group? After all, they have said this same exact thing. The Justice Department probably doesn't want them to get any more attention than they already have. Besides, the Obama Administration certainly doesn't try to muzzle free speech, do they?
So instead they attack the Police Officers Association, who bring solid, non-partisan credibility to this effort. And all the Association wants is to see this case solved. Friends of the President or not, Mr. Holder, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are two career criminal psychopaths, who have cheerfully left a lifetime path of destruction in their wake. You need to step up to the plate, Mr. Holder. All these Weather Underground cases, and the park station bombing especially, need to be solved. If the heat is too much, either get out of the fire or help solve the case. (Source: American Thinker.)
PLO CONNECTIONS OF OBAMA???
On 29 Oct Gov. Sarah Palin said Sen. Barack Obama had ties to a Columbia University professor who she said is "a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization." The Obama campaign said on its Web site that "ugly insinuations about Barack Obama's relationship with a former neighbor and university colleague ... are completely false." The professor has denied he was a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization, which the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist organization. Palin said her assertion "is not negative campaigning to call someone out on their record." "It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio. "This is important because his associate, Rashid Khalidi ... in addition to being a political ally of Barack Obama, he's a former spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization." (SITE NOTE: According to CNN, the allegations appear to be false. However, this is a distraction of Obama's other ties to Muslim individuals -- including the endorsement from Louis Farakhan of the Nation of Islam.)
Sen. John McCain's campaign repeatedly had sought to tie Obama to former 1960s radical William Ayers, who co-founded the Weather Underground. Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois. Khalidi is a leading scholar of Middle Eastern studies at Columbia, and he was a contemporary of Obama's while on the faculty of the University of Chicago. Khalidi has been a harsh critic of U.S. foreign policy toward Israel and has accused the country of "occupying" Palestinian territories. But he has denied acting as a PLO spokesman during a seven-year period in the 1970s and 1980s. Khalidi said on 29 Oct 2008, "I am not speaking to the media at this time, and certainly not until this idiot wind passes." The Obama campaign called Palin's remarks "another recycled, manufactured controversy from the McCain campaign to distract voters' attention from John McCain's lockstep support for George Bush's economic policies."
McCain ties Obama to Hamas (Apr 2008)
John McCain sought again today to tie Barack Obama to the terrorist group Hamas. In a conversation with conservative bloggers, McCain said, "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If Senator Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly." McCain is referring to Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef, who said in an interview with WABC Radio this month that the terrorist group supports Obama's foreign policy vision.
The presumptive Republican nominee also used the comment/association in a fund-raising letter last week, telling potential donors, "Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders." Obama's campaign criticized McCain, calling his comments personal attacks not in keeping with his pledge to run a respectful campaign. It also pointed out that Obama has denounced Hamas as a terrorist group that targets civilians.
Obama distanced himself from former President Jimmy Carter, who has hinted he supports Obama and who met with Hamas leaders last week, over the objections of the Bush administration and Israeli government. Obama said he wouldn't talk to Hamas until it recognized Israel's right to exist.
Obama has said he is willing to meet with foreign leaders, even those with objectionable views, to improve the US standing in the world. But he distinguishes between governments, like Iran, and groups, like Hamas.
UPDATE: McCain spokesman Brian Rogers responded to the Obama campaign's criticism: “This is a legitimate issue for the American people to think about. The reason for Hamas’ praise of Senator Obama’s foreign policy is his commitment to meet unconditionally with Iran -- a nation whose president denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, funds terrorists and sends weapons to Iraq to kill American soldiers. Senator Obama’s positions present a radical departure from the longstanding bipartisan consensus for isolating rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea." (Source: Boston Globe.)
In April, the Los Angeles Times published an article about a going-away dinner for Khalidi that Obama attended in Chicago, Illinois, in 2003. Khalidi was leaving to become a professor at Columbia. The paper reported that a young Palestinian-American woman recited a poem at the farewell party that accused the Israeli government of terrorism for its treatment of Palestinians and was highly critical of U.S. support of Israel. The McCain campaign accused the Los Angeles paper of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained from that dinner and demanded that it release the footage. The Times said it wouldn't release the footage because a reporter promised a source that the video would not be made public.
Asked why the McCain campaign was bringing the matter up six months after the article appeared, an aide replied, "Because we are one week away from potentially electing Barack Obama." At an event on 29 Oct 2008 in Raleigh, North Carolina, Obama said McCain has spent the last few days calling him "every name in the book." "I don't know what's next. By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich," Obama said. (Source: CNN.com.)
However, some watch Obama with dismay and hint at a conspiracy theory of Muslims taking control of the White House:
One watches with dismay as Democratic candidate Barack Obama manages to hide the truth on his longstanding, if indirect ties to two institutions: the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), listed by the US government in 2007 as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding trial; and the Nation of Islam (NoI), condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for its "consistent record of racism and anti-Semitism."
FIRST, Obama's ties to Islamists:
• The Khalid al-Mansour connection: According to former Manhattan Borough president Percy Sutton, Mansour "was raising money for" Obama's expenses at Harvard Law School. Mansour, a black American (né Don Warden), became adviser to Saudi prince Al-Walid bin Talal, CAIR's largest individual donor. Mansour holds standard Islamist views: He absolves the Islamist government in Sudan of sponsoring slavery, he denies a Jewish tie to Jerusalem and he wrote a booklet titled "Americans Beware! The Zionist Plot Against S. Arabia." (Both Obama and Mansour deny Sutton's account.)
• The Kenny Gamble (also known as Luqman Abdul-Haqq) connection: Gamble, a once-prominent pop music producer, cut the ribbon to the Obama campaign headquarters housed in a South Philadelphia building he owns. Gamble is an Islamist who buys large swaths of real estate in Philadelphia to create a Muslim-only residential area. Also, as the self-styled "amir" of the United Muslim Movement, he has many links to Islamist organizations, including CAIR and the Muslim Alliance in North America. (MANA's "amir" is Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.)
• The Mazen Asbahi connection: The Obama campaign's first Muslim outreach coordinator resigned after it came to light that he had served on the board of a subsidiary of the Saudi-sponsored North American Islamic Trust, with Jamal Said, another unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 Hamas funding trial. Asbahi has ties to CAIR's Chicago and Detroit offices, to the Islamic Society of North America, yet another unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding trial, and to other Islamist organizations.
• The Minha Husaini connection: The campaign's second Muslim outreach coordinator has an Islamist background, having served as an intern in the Muslim Public Service Network. Immediately upon her appointment by Obama, she met with a group of about 30 Muslims including such notorious figures as CAIR's Nihad Awad; the Muslim American Society's Mahdi Bray, who has publicly supported Hamas and Hizbullah; and Johari Abdul Malik of the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, who has advised American Muslims: "You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work."
SECOND, Obama's ties to the Nation of Islam:
Obama's long-time donor and ally Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a naturalized US citizen from Syria, partnered for nearly three decades with Jabir Herbert Muhammad, a son of NoI leader Elijah Muhammad, and says he gave Jabir and his family "millions of dollars over the years." Rezko also served as executive director of the Muhammad Ali Foundation, a rogue organization that, without Ali's permission, exploited the name of this CAIR awardee.
Jeremiah Wright, Obama's esteemed pastor for 20 years, came out of a Nation background. Recently he accepted protection from an NoI security detail, and has praised Louis Farrakhan, the NoI's leader, as one of the "giants of the African American religious experience." Wright's church celebrated Farrakhan for his having "truly epitomized greatness."
Louis Farrakhan himself endorsed Obama, calling him "the hope of the entire world," "one who can lift America from her fall," and even "the messiah." (SITE NOTE: On 10 Nov 2008 after months of silence about his support for Barack Obama, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said in an address on 9 Nov that the new president-elect has a God-given capacity to handle any burdens he'll face as the nation's leader. Farrakhan added that Obama will be able to make positive changes only with help from "God and people of goodwill," and he urged followers of the Chicago-based black nationalist movement to do their part. "President-elect Obama has energized all segments of the depressed, downtrodden, rejected and despised," he said in a 90-minute speech at Mosque Maryam on the city's South Side. "Now it is up to us to take the new energy that he has given us ... and channel that energy into making ourselves better." Dressed in intricately decorated red and gold robes and a matching fez, the once-ailing 75-year-old leader spoke to more than 1,000 followers in an address called "America's New Beginning: President-elect Barack Obama." (Source: ABC News.)
That Obama's biography touches so frequently on such unsavory organizations as CAIR and the Nation of Islam should give pause. How many of politicians have a single tie to either group, much less seven of them? (Source: Daniel Pipes.)
In the end, most voters believed that this was simply scare tactics -- much in the same way as the Muslim accusations were. However, even after the elections were over, the commentary of Obama's PLO connections were still circulating -- especially after the State Department announced that a peace settlement with Hamas would not be possible until after Dec 2008.
UPDATE: 22 Jan 2009 United States President Barack Obama told Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and three other Middle East leaders that he is determined to stop Hamas from smuggling arms into Gaza. According to a statement from White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, the new president placed phone calls on Wednesday morning to Olmert, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and King Adullah of Jordan.
The statement said that Obama "emphasised his determination to work to help consolidate the ceasefire by establishing an effective anti-smuggling regime to prevent Hamas from rearming, and facilitating in partnership with the Palestinian Authority a major reconstruction effort for Palestinians in Gaza." Obama in the statement pledged that the United States, working with the international community, "would do its part to make these efforts successful". He also communicated to the four leaders "his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term" and "his hope for their continued cooperation and leadership".
Olmert told Obama that he hoped the anti-smuggling efforts would work because it would "stabilise the ceasefire and advance the diplomatic process" between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, according to a statement from Olmert's office. Olmert also told the US president that Israel "would invest effort in supplying the humanitarian needs" of the Palestinians in Gaza and work to improve the Palestinian economic situation in the West Bank.
Senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told Reuters that "Obama reiterated that he and his administration will work in full partnership with President Abbas to achieve peace in the region". (Source: AJN.)
(SITE NOTE: However, the rabid anti-Obama faction showed it as "proof" that the first phone call by Obama was to Palestinian President Abbas -- disregarding the other phone calls to leaders in the region and the crisis with the Hamas rocketing Israel and Israel's subsequent invasion of Gaza. Others acknowledged the other calls but stated that Obama called Abbas FIRST. (NOTE: The spokesman for President Abbas revealed that Mr Obama had told the Palestinian leader that their conversation was his first with a foreign statesman since taking office. Mr Obama also spoke to President Mubarak of Egypt, Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, and King Abdullah of Jordan. (Source: London Times.))
UPDATE: Feb 2009 By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza. The "presidential determination" which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27, 2009 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4, 2009. President Obama's decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by "the urgent refugee and migration needs" of the "victims."
Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006. The charter for Hamas calls for the replacement of the nation of Israel with a Palestinian Islamic state.
Since its formation in 1994, Hamas has been responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks, including the 2002 Passover suicide bombing. The leaders of the movement signed the World Islamic Statement of 1998 – a document, penned by Osama bin Laden, which declared war on America and Israel.
President Obama's executive order is expected to bring hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, many with ties to radical Islam, to our shores, furthering a process that was inaugurated in 1995 by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Cedar-Hart bill. (Source: Free Republic.)
(Aug 2007)
CAIR -- Civil rights advocates or radical Islamists?
CAIR presses Fox TV on Muslim terrorists (Jan 2005) Fox television bucked current media convention by portraying terrorists as Muslims in its drama series "24," but a controversial Islamic lobby group that complained about the show now says it is "encouraged" after meeting with network officials and winning concessions and assurances. Fox spokesman Scott Grogin told WorldNetDaily today the network has agreed to the Council on American-Islamic Relations' request to distribute a CAIR public service announcement to network affiliates.
But when asked to comment on CAIR's claim that network officials assured the Muslim group they had already removed some aspects of existing episodes that could potentially be viewed as stereotypical," Grogin refused to comment. Grogin, who was at the meeting, said he had nothing to say aside from stating, "We met with representatives from CAIR on Wednesday and had a very informative and productive meeting, and we look forward to working with them in the future." However, he corrected CAIR's statement that Fox agreed to ask affiliates that the PSA "be aired in proximity to '24.'"
Grogin said Fox only agreed to distribute the PSA to affiliates and will make no request as to when, "or even if," it is to air. CAIR said it called for the meeting Wednesday -- which included representatives from CAIR's Southern California office and from the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council -- to "address the depiction of a 'Muslim' family that is at the heart of a terror plot in the popular program."
The Washington, D.C.-based group said it was concerned that the portrayal of the family as a terrorist "sleeper cell" may "cast a shadow of suspicion over ordinary American Muslims and could increase Islamophobic stereotyping and bias." CAIR's statement today said that in addition to distribution of the PSAs, "FOX also gave meeting participants assurances that the program will be balanced in its portrayal of Muslims. Network representatives said that they had already reviewed existing episodes and removed some aspects that could potentially be viewed as stereotypical." "We thank Fox for the opportunity to address the Muslim community's concerns and for the willingness of network officials to take those concerns seriously in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation," said CAIR Communications Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed.
The show, which has a story line that runs the entire season, is based on 24 hours at a counter-terrorism unit. In its fourth season, this year's story centers on a terrorist sleeper cell planning an attack on the United States.
CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association For Palestine, a group identified by two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a U.S. front group for the terrorist group Hamas. Since 9-11, CAIR has seen three of its former employees indicted on federal terrorism charges.
Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida. In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S. After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.
Another CAIR figure, Bassem Khafagi, was arrested in January 2003 while serving as the group's director of community relations. The previous December, Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was indicted for financial ties to Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook. Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam.
As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority. He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant. (Source: WND.)
A controversial Islamic lobby group says it consulted with Fox television on the text of a disclaimer that accompanied an episode of the series "24," which breaks current entertainment-media convention by depicting terrorists as Muslims. The Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations – which has seen three of its former employees indicted on federal terrorism charges – sent representatives to meet Jan. 12 with network officials because it was concerned that the series' portrayal of a Muslims family as a terrorist "sleeper cell" may "cast a shadow of suspicion over ordinary American Muslims and could increase Islamophobic stereotyping and bias." WND.)
Kiefer Sutherland, who stars as counterterrorist agent Jack Bauer, read the disclaimer Monday night. [View via dial-up or broadband.]
"Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind."
Last month, Fox spokesman Scott Grogin told WND that as a result of the January meeting, the network agreed to distribute a CAIR-produced public service announcement to affiliates. (Source: WND.)
Doubts grow over Muslim lawmaker's loyalty -- Keith Ellison tied to group that holds Quran as highest legal authority (Dec 2006) The first Muslim member of Congress is linked to a radical Islamic school of thought that requires loyalty to the Quran over the U.S. Constitution, WND has learned. Rep.-elect Keith (Hakim-Mohammed) Ellison, D-Minn., has drawn fire for asking to take the constitutional oath on the Quran rather than the Bible at a swearing-in ceremony next month.
The Constitution specifies that members of Congress shall be bound by an oath to support the constitutional law of the land. In the oath, Ellison will be required to swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ... without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." Critics argue he has conflicting loyalties, while Ellison insists he's a patriot. But within days of being elected, Ellison held a workshop on politics for a group closely affiliated with a radical Islamic school that preaches no Muslim can pledge loyalty to the Constitution or make laws outside the laws of the Quran, which the school's leaders assert is the "supreme law" of the land, trumping all man-made laws including the U.S. Constitution.
A black convert to orthodox Sunni Islam, Ellison spoke to the North American Imams Federation, or NAIF, at the group's Nov. 19 conference in Minneapolis. His talk flowed into a breakout session listed on the agenda simply as "American Open University," according to the conference program. It turns out the university is a "distance-learning" center based in Alexandria, Va., and known to local law enforcement as "Wahhabi Online."
Later that day, Ellison met with NAIF's president, Omar Ahmad Shahin, who lectures at the same American Open University. (He also met at the time with New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.) The radical Islamic school trains many of NAIF's more than 150 members, who control mosques across America. American Open University supports Sharia, or Islamic law. And its founder and chairman, Jaafar Sheikh Idris, has denounced the U.S system of democracy as "the antithesis of Islam" and argued no man has the right to make laws outside Allah's laws expressed in the Quran. "There is a basic difference between Islam and this form of democracy," he says. "The basic difference is that in Islam it is [Allah's] law as expressed in the Quran and the Sunna that is the supreme law within the limits of which people have the right to legislate. "No one can be a Muslim who makes or freely accepts or believes that anyone has the right to make or accept legislation that is contrary to that divine law," Idris adds. "Examples of such violations include the legalization of alcoholic drinks, gambling, homosexuality, usury or interest, and even adoption."
Conversely, laws prohibiting polygamy and domestic violence also violate the Quran. Further, he maintains that no Muslim elected to Congress or the White House can swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution and still be a Muslim. "No Muslim could become president in a secular regime, for in order to pledge loyalty to the constitution, a Muslim would have to abandon part of his belief and embrace the belief of secularism – which is practically another religion. For Muslims, the word 'religion' does not only refer to a collection of beliefs and rituals, it refers to a way of life which includes all values, behaviors and details of living," Idris says. "Separation of religion and state is not an option for Muslims because it requires us to abandon [Allah's] decree for that of a man."
He further explains: "Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides Muslims through every detail of running the state and their lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the laws of [Allah]." Also, he asserts that "there is absolutely no compromise: Any belief that contradicts Islam is false."
Backed by CAIR
Ellison's campaign was backed by the Washington-based lobby group Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a partner organization to American Open University-affiliated NAIF. CAIR held fundraisers for Ellison, a civil-rights lawyer and one-time acolyte of Louis Farrakhan who admits to making anti-Semitic remarks in the past (under various alias including Keith Hakim, Keith Ellison-Muhammad and Keith X Ellison). CAIR's founder has argued the Quran should replace the Constitution as the highest authority in the land. The group's director of communications, moreover, has expressed his desire to see the U.S. become an Islamic state. CAIR is an offshoot of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a suspected front for the terrorist group Hamas.
Pundit Dennis Prager and other critics have demanded Ellison take the constitutional oath on the Bible, arguing the constitution derives its authority from the Bible, not the Quran. If Ellison puts his hand on the Quran, Prager says he would be in effect nullifying his oath and undermining "American civilization."
"He should not be allowed to do so," he asserted in a recent column. Another critic, Glenn Beck of CNN, questioned Ellison's loyalties. "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies," he asked Ellison on a recent show. "There's no one who is more patriotic than I am," Ellison replied. "And so, you know, I don't need to prove my patriotic stripes."
Others point out Ellison has shown a pattern of disrespect for U.S. laws, raising the question whether he's qualified to make law. Failure to pay his taxes resulted in liens on his home. Failure to pay more than 40 parking and traffic tickets has twice led to suspension of his Minnesota license. He's also racked up hefty fines from campaign finance violations and defended the leader of a cop-killing gang.
Red flags
In addition to CAIR, the NAIF-affiliated American Open University, however, has raised a number of red flags at the FBI, including the fact that:
It's founder and chairman, Jaafar Idris, is a Sudanese radical on the Saudi payroll who was recently deported for visa fraud and spreading extremism in America. Idris, like NAIF's Shahin, studied Islam in Saudi Arabia and Sudan and says he has "great respect" for the father of the purist Wahhabi movement followed by Osama bin Laden – Saudi theologian Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
A co-founder of the school, Salah As-Sawi, is a professor at Al-Azhar in Egypt, a bastion of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood, which gave rise to Hamas and al-Qaida. In fact, American Open University is a fully accredited satellite campus of Al-Azhar. As-Sawi worked with Idris at the Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences in Washington, a propaganda center set up by the Saudi Embassy to spread Wahhabism in America. It was raided after 9/11 and is still under surveillance by federal authorities.
Alumni of the "university" include convicted members of the Virginia Jihad Network, who trained to kill American troops overseas.
The school has received funding from a suspected al-Qaida front that has expressly advocated suicide attacks and using airliners as weapons. The Islamic Assembly of North America, or IANA, is bankrolled by the Saudi religious minister who stayed at the same Washington-area hotel as the hijackers the night before they attacked the Pentagon. (He feigned a heart attack when FBI agents tried to question him and was subsequently evacuated with other Saudi officials on White House-approved escape flights after 9/11.)
A former CAIR official, Bassem Khafagi, headed IANA. He pleaded guilty to terror-related charges and was deported after 9/11.
Last month's NAIF conference program outlining Ellison's session, titled "Imams and Politics," says Muslim involvement in Western politics is a "sensitive" issue. "Imams must be able to provide Muslims with the proper guidance and educate them on the etiquettes [sic] of any political involvement within the Islamic context," the program says. "Questions also arise on whether imams and Islamic centers should be involved in politics at all and what the extent of this involvement should be."
Transcripts of his talk and the subsequent breakout session on American Open University were not made available to the public. (Source: WND.)
CAIR: Civil rights advocates or radical Islamists? -- Muslim lobby group has troubling record of terror arrests (Dec 2007) The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, says its aim is "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."
Maybe so, but federal prosecutors have also named the group an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund the terrorist group Hamas, several of CAIR's leaders have been convicted on terror charges since 9/11, and one of its founders has reportedly declared that America should be governed by Islamic sharia law.
Adding to the controversy over the high-profile lobby group, CAIR is now being sued by radio talk show host Michael Savage over CAIR's attacks on him and what he says constitute illegal use of his broadcasts.
The lawsuit alleges CAIR is a "political vehicle of international terrorism" that seeks to do "material harm to those voices who speak against the violent agenda of CAIR's clients." Filed in U.S. District Court in California, the suit seeks damages equal to the ongoing donations from CAIR supporters "who expect CAIR to act in this manner in exchange for continuing financial support" as well as "actual damages according to proof."
The focal point of the lawsuit is a series of audio clips CAIR has been using in its promotions and fundraisings. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for CAIR, told WND the group would not comment on the action until the document had been reviewed. Although the news media generally have portrayed CAIR as a legitimate civil rights group, the organization has had a hard time maintaining its squeaky clean image. For instance, as WND has reported, Ghassan Elashi, a board member of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in 2005 of channeling funds to a high-ranking official of Hamas – which the U.S. government officially designates a terrorist organization.
As WND reported in October 2006, Elashi was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison for financial ties to a high-ranking Hamas terrorist and for making illegal computer exports to countries that back terrorism. Other CAIR figures convicted since 9-11 are Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer, a former communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, and Bassem Khafagi, former director of community relations. Royer was sentenced to 20 years in prison on charges he trained in Virginia for holy war against the United States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida. In a plea bargain, Royer claimed he never intended to hurt anyone but admitted he organized the holy warriors after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.After his arrest, Royer sought legal counsel from Hamas lawyer Stanley Cohen, who said after 9-11 he would consider serving as a defense lawyer for Osama bin Laden if the al-Qaida leader were captured.
Khafagi was arrested in January 2003 while serving with CAIR and convicted on fraud and terrorism charges. Current CAIR leaders also have made statements in support of Hamas and the domination of the U.S. by Islam. As WorldNetDaily reported, CAIR's chairman of the board, Omar Ahmad, was cited by a California newspaper in 1998 declaring the Quran should be America's highest authority. He also was reported to have said Islam is not in America to be equal to any other religion but to be dominant.
Just this past June, CAIR itself was named, along with two other prominent U.S. Islamic groups, as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in a plot to fund Hamas. Federal prosecutors also cited the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust as participants in a plot with five officials of the defunct Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. CAIR is a spinoff of the defunct Islamic Association for Palestine, launched by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook and former university professor Sami al-Arian, who pleaded guilty last year to conspiracy to provide services to Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Last March, the House Republican Conference urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to cancel an event hosted on Capitol Hill by CAIR, calling the group "terrorist apologists." And the group's regular meetings with the Justice Department and FBI have prompted complaints from case agents, who say the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board.
CAIR has even conducted "sensitivity" and cultural training with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement and with the military. In June of last year, a senior Department of Homeland Security official from Washington guided CAIR officials on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.
Last year, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., withdrew an award she gave to a local CAIR official, saying she was concerned about some statements by CAIR leaders. Savage's lawsuit follows a CAIR campaign to influence advertisers to abandon the popular talker's program. CAIR's recent announcement said OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, had joined "a growing list of companies" withdrawing advertising from Savage's program because of his opinions regarding Islam.
That prompted the group ACT for America to launch an alert suggesting people call OfficeMax to encourage the company to reverse its decision. "Call the OfficeMax office headquarters … and when you get an operator, in a polite but firm manner, tell the operator you have heard about the company's decision to stop advertising on the Michael Savage program because of the pressure from CAIR. Tell them you will no longer shop at OfficeMax until OfficeMax reverses this ill-advised decision," the advisory said. "If CAIR can succeed in this effort to silence Michael Savage, consider the chilling effect this will have on every talk radio host in America," wrote American Congress for Truth founder Brigitte Gabriel in the alert. (Source: WND.)
Twin Cities Somalis protest against … CAIR? (Jun 2009)When a young Somali man disappeared from the Twin Cities and committed a suicide bombing in his home country — and when several of his fellow Muslims from the same mosque disappeared as well — the local Somali community wanted answers. They wanted to get those answers from the FBI, but as they soon discovered, another force didn't want those answers at all. The Somalis took to the streets yesterday in opposition to the kibbitzers:
Relatives, friends and neighbors of a Minneapolis teen killed in Somalia pressed their argument Thursday that a Muslim civil rights group is hampering a federal investigation into the disappearances of dozens of Twin Cities Somali men.
At a protest outside the Brian Coyle Community Center in Minneapolis' Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, Abdirizak Bihi, the uncle of Burhan Hassan, who relatives say was killed last week in Mogadishu by a terrorist group, accused the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Minnesota chapter of discouraging local Somalis from cooperating with the FBI.
"We don't want anyone to come into our community and tell us to shut up," Bihi said. "Law enforcement will not be able to do anything without information from the community."
About 50 people attended the rally, waving signs and hollering, "CAIR out! Doublespeak out!" (Source: Star Tribune.)
Have CAIR officials interfered with an FBI investigation and tampered with witnesses? Both would be federal crimes, as would obstruction of justice. Any coordinated effort to do any of the three would add conspiracy charges. The FBI should take note of the protest and find out why their investigation may not be going as smoothly as they hoped.
Besides, why is CAIR so interested in shutting up Muslims who want to cooperate to find their sons before they might commit suicide as well? An organization that wanted to serve American Muslims should be more interested in finding the missing young men than in silencing their families. Unless, of course, CAIR has a completely different agenda.
Even without the speculation, clearly CAIR has angered the community it purports to represent.
Update: Just to make clear, the suicide bomber and the disappearances were long before the murder of Burkhan Hassan, whose death in Mogadishu just got confirmed. Hassan disappeared at the same time as the others from the Abubakar Mosque, last November. (Source: Hot Air.)
'Now we have proof' jihadis infiltrating D.C. (Oct 2009) In the wake of the sensational ACORN video sting operation by two young investigators, an even more daring and devastating undercover investigation – this one infiltrating the nation's most aggressive Muslim "civil rights" organization for six months – has produced stunning revelations about the supposedly "moderate" group, backed up by 12,000 pages of documents and 300 hours of covert video obtained during the secret op.
As revealed in a new book detailing the operation and its findings, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, is not the beneficent Muslim civil-rights group it claims to be. Indisputable evidence now shows CAIR and other "mainstream" Islamic groups are acting as fronts for a well-funded conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood – the parent of al-Qaida and Hamas – to infiltrate and destroy the American system.
"Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America," a WND Books publication by counter-terrorism investigator P. David Gaubatz and "Infiltration" author Paul Sperry, documents CAIR's ultimate purpose to transform the United States into an Islamic nation under the authority of the Quran. The book already has prompted action on Capitol Hill. With evidence from "Muslim Mafia" in hand, U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the Congressional Anti-Terror Caucus, and other members of Congress – including Reps. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., and Paul Broun, R-Ga. – plan to hold a press conference today in Washington calling for an investigation and an end to political lobbying by front groups such as CAIR. "Now we have proof – from the secret documents that this investigative team has uncovered, coupled with the ones recently declassified by the FBI – that [radical Islamists] agents living among us have a plan in place, and they are successfully carrying out that subversive plan," Myrick writes in the foreword to "Muslim Mafia."
Noting that CAIR has tried to hide its strategy, finances, membership, internal disputes and much more from public view since its founding in 1994, Islam expert Daniel Pipes lauded "Muslim Mafia" for definitively exposing the "tawdry and often illegal inner workings of radical Islam's most aggressive organization in North America." "The revelations in this book should both put CAIR out of business and permanently discredit the Islamist cause," Pipes said.
Undercover
The book begins as a real-life, heart-pounding thriller, with Chris Gaubatz, the son of co-author David Gaubatz, preparing to go underground as an intern for CAIR at its Herndon, Va., office.
Astoundingly, the younger Gaubatz, posing as a bearded Muslim convert, ends up with a position at CAIR's national office in Washington, just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building, working alongside top leaders Ibrahim Hooper, Nihad Awad and Corey Saylor. Along with declassified government documents, the book unveils thousands of e-mails, faxes and internal memos that were never meant for public viewing.
The new evidence shows that CAIR – already designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history – is part of an organized crime network in America made up of more than 100 other Muslim front groups that collectively comprise the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. "Muslim Mafia" also exposes the inner workings of the mob-like Brotherhood and explains its broader conspiracy of infiltrating the American government and "destroying Western civilization from within." "The evidence found in the investigation is incontrovertible," said co-author Sperry, noting that the book has more than 40 pages of footnotes and an appendix with more than 50 pages of exclusive confidential documents.
The Brotherhood is known within Islamist circles as the "Ikhwan mafia" because of its highly organized structure, centralized control and covert operations. CAIR, reveals "Muslim Mafia," is one part of the network of front groups, cut-outs and shell companies that shield the Brotherhood's criminal activities from authorities. "These guys talk about jihad and murdering Jews like the mob talked about killing – totally casual, like they were ordering pizza," said one FBI official in Washington quoted in the book. Some key smoking-gun revelations detailed in "Muslim Mafia" include:
New evidence that CAIR was launched to support the Hamas terrorist group, and has transferred tens of thousands of dollars to a group recently convicted as Hamas' top fundraising arm in the U.S. – money that ended up aiding terrorist attacks on Israelis and Americans;
Internal documents showing CAIR, despite claims of cooperating with law enforcement, actively works behind the scenes to mislead and deceive the FBI on behalf of terrorism suspects – and has even cultivated Muslim moles inside law enforcement who have tipped off FBI terror targets;
CAIR is more closely tied to al-Qaida than previously reported;
CAIR claims to represent all Muslim Americans, however, it has victimized some 100 indigent Muslims in a massive fraud and threatened them when they tried to go to the media; and internally, personnel complaints reveal CAIR discriminates against Shiite Muslims and Muslim women within its own headquarters;
CAIR and its sister fronts are funded by foreign Muslim Brotherhood sources;
CAIR leaders share the Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal to replace the U.S. Constitution with Shariah law:
The Muslim Brotherhood investment in corporate America will be used to pressure U.S. companies into compliance with Islamic principles.
The book also shows radical Muslims in the U.S. are working to support Palestinian terrorists, destroy Israel, gut U.S. anti-terrorism laws, loosen U.S. Muslim immigration policies and convert Americans to Islam. The authors explain they targeted CAIR because it helps control the "religious crime syndicate from its power base in Washington, the capitol of the same government it wishes to overthrow."
While the FBI has cut formal ties to CAIR in the wake of its designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in a plot to fund the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the group has virtually unfettered access to Capitol Hill and continues to wield influence in the White House.
CAIR, the book reveals, regularly reserves meeting rooms and prays Fridays alongside Muslim Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., and a growing number of Muslim staffers. The first Muslim elected to Congress and a de facto CAIR board member, Ellison predicted in one CAIR power breakfast he soon would be flanked by 15 other Muslim congressmen, "Muslim Mafia" notes. Chris Gaubatz, in fact, once found himself praying elbow-to-elbow with Ellison during a Friday prayer gathering attended by CAIR inside the U.S. Capitol. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the book says, is totally in the dark about the threat, and so is the White House.
In fact, reveals "Muslim Mafia," in the White House President Obama is hiring Muslims – including an adviser who advocates compliance with Shariah law – based on resumes solicited from Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Meanwhile, the FBI is in conflict internally about how to deal with the Brotherhood, with some top officials in favor of maintaining outreach, while counter-terror case agents in the field strongly object, pointing to evidence the network is a factory for homegrown terror and is secretly carrying out activities hostile to the U.S. "They've achieved outrageous penetration at senior levels of our government," veteran FBI special agent John Guandolo warns in the book. Until recently, the FBI engaged in outreach activities with CAIR, including forcing rookie agents to take cultural field trips to area mosques. The "Muslim Mafia" authors obtained notes revealing the FBI even has offered to sponsor Muslim youth camps with the Boys Clubs of America.
A shortage of Arab linguists and dozens of discrimination suits by Arab and Muslim employees has prompted the FBI to recruit from Brotherhood-related groups, such as the Islamic Society of North America A Muslim agent who drew national attention when he refused to tape-record a fellow Muslim during a terrorism investigation was promoted and now recruits other Muslims to become agents and linguists.
'Hit sheets'
The book also presents evidence CAIR has prepared "hit sheets" on its critics in the news media in an effort to intimidate them into silence. Internal memos show, for example, top officials privately met with CNN executives in Atlanta to press them to cancel Glenn Beck's program on its Headline News network. Beck now has a highly rated afternoon show on the Fox News Channel. CAIR's campaign to boycott leading nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage's advertisers cost more than $160,000, the book reveals. The authors recount how CAIR ran out of money before it could crack Savage's most loyal sponsors.
The book also includes new revelations about CAIR's role in the "flying imams" case in 2006 in which six Muslim leaders were removed from an airline flight in Minneapolis after passengers and crew members reported what they believed to be suspicious behavior. "Muslim Mafia" also exposes CAIR's secret agenda to criminalize anti-terror profiling by police and private entities.
Gaubatz is a veteran federal investigator and counter-terrorism specialist who served for more than a decade as a special agent in the U.S. Air Force's elite Office of Special Investigations. He held the U.S. government's highest security clearances, including Top Secret/SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information), and was briefed in many so-called black projects. Gaubatz also is a State Department-trained Arabic linguist with more than two decades of experience in the Middle East, including tours in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq. In 2003, he led a 15-man team to rescue the family members of the Iraqi lawyer credited with saving Army Private First Class Jessica Lynch.
Sperry, a media fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is former Washington bureau chief for Investor's Business Daily and former Washington bureau chief of WorldNetDaily.com.
His bestseller "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," is being used by the U.S. military and top law enforcement departments nationwide. Many of the numerous stories he has broken on national security and counter-terrorism have been cited by the Washington Post, USA Today, UPI and the Associated Press, among others. His columns have appeared in publications such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Houston Chronicle, American Spectator and Reason.
One FBI official quoted in "Muslim Mafia" says CAIR and the other Muslim Brotherhood front groups differ from al-Qaida in that, while all share the same goals, they use different methods to achieve them "The only difference between the guys in the suits and the guys with the AK-47s is timing and tactics," the official explained. (Source: WND.)
House Republicans accuse CAIR Muslim group of trying to plant spies (Oct 2009) Four House Republicans are accusing a Muslim advocacy group of trying to plant spies. Republican members of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus say the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), tried to plant “spies” within key national security committees to shape legislative policy in its favor.
Reps. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), Paul Broun (R-Ga.) and Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), citing the recently released book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America, called for the House sergeant at arms to investigate whether CAIR had been successful in placing interns on key committees. The lawmakers are specifically focused on the House Homeland Security Committee, Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee. “If an organization is connected to or supports terrorists [and] is running influence operations or planting spies in key national security-related offices I think this needs to be made known,” Broun said. “So I join my colleagues here today in calling for action.”
The book, which was written by P. David Gaubatz and Paul Sperry with a forward by Myrick, is scheduled to be released Thursday. A representative of CAIR called the accusations unfounded and worried that they would tarnish the improving relations between Muslim and non-Muslim Americans. “God forbid American Muslims take part in the political process and exercise their rights,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a CAIR spokesman, in a telephone interview. “I suppose they’re going to investigate the Muslim Staffers Association next. “If these people weren’t so hate-filled, it would be laughable, but unfortunately they have an audience and given their positions, it’s going to get picked up by the hate blogs.” (Source: The Hill.)
Hill terror front group investigated by FBI (Oct 2009) The Washington field office of the FBI is actively investigating the founding chairman and acting executive director of the nation's premier Islamic-rights group in Washington, based on evidence that emerged from the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history, a blockbuster new book alleges.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations, along with its founding chairman Omar M. Ahmad, were named by the U.S. Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in a criminal conspiracy led by the Holy Land Foundation charity to underwrite Palestinian terrorism. "CAIR has been identified by the government at trial as a participant in an ongoing and ultimately unlawful conspiracy to support a designated terrorist organization – a conspiracy from which CAIR never withdrew," federal prosecutors wrote in September 2007, according to court documents.
Following the blacklisting, the FBI severed ties with CAIR, a move that sent shock waves throughout the American Muslim establishment. "Until we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and Hamas," explained assistant FBI director Richard C. Powers, "the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner."
The 15-year-old nonprofit organization's top executives for years had enjoyed virtually unfettered access to the corridors of power in the capital, even meeting with presidents and rubbing elbows with congressional leaders. Now Ahmad and CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad have come under active investigation for their roles in the criminal conspiracy to funnel millions of dollars to Hamas terrorists, according to "Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America." The officials could not be reached for comment. And CAIR declined comment. Neither official has been charged with a crime. However, the book quotes Awad privately saying he thought the Holy Land defendants, who were found guilty on all 108 felony counts, should be "exonerated" and suggested "Jewish organizations" framed them. Both Omar, aka Omar Yehia, and Awad, who uses the alias Nehad Hammad, are Palestinian refugees who together founded CAIR in 1994 after operating the Hamas front Islamic Association for Palestine.
Specifically, the book alleges, investigators are focusing on the CAIR co-founders' ties to Hamas's top leader in the U.S. – Shukri Abu Baker – who earlier this year was sentenced to what in effect will be a life term in prison for his role in the Holy Land conspiracy. They say Abu Baker last decade coordinated a secret meeting with Ahmad in a Philadelphia hotel, where Hamas leaders hatched a scheme to disguise payments to Palestinian suicide bombers and their families as charity. Investigators say the two arranged the meeting in a Dallas phone conversation.
The FBI wiretaps of the meeting also identify the presence of CAIR chief Awad, who gave a presentation regarding plans to conceal the true nature of the front groups involved in the plot through media propaganda efforts. Room invoices from the Courtyard by Marriott hotel meeting are presented in the book.
Investigators also are looking at a trail of money between Baker and CAIR and between Baker and Hamas. As previously reported, Baker had signed a check for at least $5,000 to CAIR as it was starting up operations.
But "Muslim Mafia" – based in part on some 12,000 pages of documents collected from inside CAIR's national headquarters during a private undercover operation – presents for the first time evidence that CAIR gave at least $40,000 to Baker's front group in Dallas. Just a few months later that group turned around and gave exactly $40,000 to Hamas suicide bombers in Gaza, documents show. The transaction was made after the Clinton administration designated Hamas a terrorist entity and outlawed transfer of money to Hamas through charitable donations from U.S. groups and citizens.
The CAIR "investment" (as its internal financial records refer to it) – which represented more than half its assets at the time – ostensibly was funneled through the Islamic Relief Committee, a known charitable front for Hamas in the Palestinian territories, the book alleges. Islamic Relief at the time had requested more money to finance "weapons to carry out the jihad operations" against Israel and its allies, according to one hand-written missive. "You do not know how happy people become when they watch those mujahideen," it added referring to Hamas terrorists, "and how proud they feel when they parade in their uniforms and weapons – and the extent of their honor when they carry out their jihadist operations against the Jews and their tentacles."
Just months before the Philadelphia hotel meeting, Islamic Relief Committee had solicited money from a secret Hamas subsidiary in the U.S. investigators believe was headed by Baker and Ahmad called the "Palestine Committee." The FBI says the committee was controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which founded Hamas.
In a letter faxed to a Brotherhood underboss in the U.S., who lives outside Washington, Islamic Relief asked Baker's and Ahmad's special committee for more American money to finance terrorism operations, complaining its "financial needs" were not being met. "Provide us with what helps us of funds and weapons," it pleaded in one letter from the Gaza Strip. "Weapons, weapons, our brothers." "Jihad in Palestine is different from any jihad," the letter continued. "The meaning of killing a Jew for the liberation of Palestine cannot be compared to any jihad on earth."
Evidence presented in Muslim Mafia shows the name of CAIR's current chief Awad appears with Baker's and Ahmad's on a list of "important phone and fax numbers" for the Palestine Committee in America. At the time, Awad lived in Minneapolis where he worked with Ibrahim Hooper, now CAIR's national communications director. Moreover, Muslim Mafia presents evidence that now-convicted terrorist Baker has met with CAIR officials at its headquarters located just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol, according to visitor registration logs obtained in the covert investigation.
The 48-year-old Awad has publicly supported Hamas in the past. "I am in support of the Hamas movement," he declared the year CAIR was founded.
Like Ahmad, Awad, who has turned down congressional invitations to answer questions under oath, remains under FBI scrutiny. "He's a bad guy – one of Hamas's senior guys in the United States," the book quotes a veteran special agent with the FBI's Washington field office saying. Ahmad, for his part, abruptly resigned from CAIR's board after his unindicted terrorist co-conspirator designation. The longtime CAIR chairman, 49, is on record telling a Muslim audience in California that the Quran should supersede the U.S. Constitution as the highest authority in the land.
FBI agents and federal prosecutors "are very actively working to indict" CAIR's national leaders, confirms a U.S. official familiar with the ongoing investigation in connection with the Holy Land case. He says "fresh evidence" emerged from the case, triggering a closer look at both of CAIR's founders and their connections to Hamas. The FBI's Washington field office is working in coordination with the bureau's Dallas field office on the ongoing investigation. Dallas FBI Special Agent Lara Burns has testified, unequivocally, that CAIR is a front group for the Hamas terrorist group. (Source: WND.)
As the election looked more and more like a landslide all types of radical accusations were raised. McCain himself said he did not believe Obama is a socialist but that he had been "in the far left of American politics." McCain and Palin accused Obama of supporting socialistic tax policies that would redistribute the nation's wealth.
On the surface, the accusation seems frivilous. However, when on sees the doctrine of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and compare it to Barack Obama's programs one begins to wonder. Then one gets concerned when the DSA Statement on the 2008 Election which points out the need for progressive Senator/Representatives to promote its agenda. It then goes on to say "DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda."
Next when one looks at the circle that Obama worked, socialized and surrounded himself with one starts to get a feeling that he was comfortable with the academia crowd -- the intelligensia and social activists. These are the core of the DSA -- and then one starts to wonder. As far as we see, there is NO proof -- only guilt by association. His policies seem on the surface seem very similar to the DSA "four pillars" of its progressive policy agenda -- universal health care, progressive taxation (Obama plan to tax the rich and ease tax on middle class), labor support (auto industry is the backbone of US busines), and U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor, environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations (NAFTA, KORUS FTA, etc. and his GREEN policies).
Even when one sees the 1992 articles associating Obama with the New Party, an offshoot of the DSA, one still would be hesitant to condemn him. Of course the Obama campaign denied such accusations, but the thought lingers that the aims of the DSA seem very close to the programs that Obama has articulated. Supposedly evidence has emerged that Sen. Barack Obama belonged to a socialist political party that 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. Several blogs, including Powerline, previously documented that while running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the socialist-oriented New Party, with some blogs claiming Obama was a member of the controversial party.
The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists for America (DSA) and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA (CPUSA), was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.
Beyond a reasonable doubt -- Obama is a socialist -- at best!
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.
So the New Party claimed Obama as a member as of 1996. Progressive Populist magazine agreed in this editorial:
New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.
Barack Obama chose to affiliate himself with this band of quasi-communists. As the nation moves closer to the election, it is clear that Obama chose to affiliate with assorted anti-American radicals. Machiavelli once noted that we can know a leader by the people he surrounds himself with. What does it say about Barack Obama, that he chooses to surround himself with people committed to overthrowing the United States and capitalism? (Source: Obama File.)
According to US writer David Farah, DSA is quite cynical about using the Democratic Party as a cover for their socialist activism. He quotes from a DSA youth organising document. "Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work... "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
As of August 2005, DSA had 5,000-6,000 members, in 24 chartered "locals". Many are influential and well known, including literary critic Irving Howe, feminist activist and journalist Gloria Steinem, actor Ed Asner, author Barbara Ehrenreich, 1997 New York City mayoral candidate Ruth Messinger, United Auto Workers co-founder Victor Reuther, leading African-American Studies professor Cornel West, linguist Noam Chomsky, political scientist Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, political columnist Harold Meyerson and AFL-CIO president, John Sweeney. It also has more than 60 US Congressmen and Senators "in its pocket."
(SITE NOTE: The 2008 DSA Leadership is: National Political Committee (Theresa Alt, Virginia Franco, David Green, Michael Hirsch, David Knuttunen, Simone Morgen, Michele Rossi, Joseph Schwartz, Timothy Sears, Herbert Shore, John Strauss, Corey Walker) //
Honorary Chairs (Bogdan Denitch, Barbara Ehrenreich, Dolores Huerta, Eliseo Medina, Eugene "Gus" Newport, Frances Fox Piven, Gloria Steinem, Cornel West) // Vice-Chairs (Ed Clark, Dorothy Healey, Jose LaLuz, Hilda Mason, Steve Max, Harold Meyerson, Maxine Phillips, Christine Riddiough, Rosemary Ruether, Motl Zelmanowicz) (Source: DSA Organization.) If you notice, amongst these names are some very high profile academians and activists representing labor and minorities.)
Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the principal US affiliate of the Socialist International, a federation of socialist, social democratic and labour parties. "We are socialists," says the organization "because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.... To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed. ... Formed in 1983, DSA brought together what it calls "former Socialists and Communists, former old leftists and new leftists, and many who had never been leftists at all." (Source: Wikipedia.)
It is inaccurate to describe DSA as primarily working within the “left-wing” of the Democratic Party.” The 1993 DSA convention in fact resolved “that the imperative task for the democratic Left is to build anti-corporate social movements which are capable of winning reforms which empower people. In so far as such social movements and coalitions wish to influence state policy they will, at times, intervene in electoral politics. The fundamental question for DSA is not what form that electoral intervention takes, whether it be through Democratic primary races, non-partisan local elections, or third party efforts. Rather, our electoral work aims at building majoritarian coalitions capable of not only electing public officials, but capable of holding them accountable after they are elected.”
DSA’s main task is to build grassroots, multi-racial, progressive coalitions. There is no short-cut to doing so other than the hard work of “education, agitation, and organizing.” Neither flying the flag of a third party which lacks a mass social base, or placing uncritical faith in isolated progressive Democratic politicians will build a powerful Left. A successful third party would have to command sufficient strength in mass constituencies that it could split one of the two major parties.
DSA is no more loyal to the Democratic Party – which barely exists as a grassroots institution – than are individuals or social movements which upon occasion use its ballot line or vote for its candidates. The peculiar nature of the American constitution renders third party politics difficult at both the national and state level. Myriad structural factors mitigate against viable third parties, and various constitutional blockages are exceedingly difficult to amend: executive-based federalism makes parliamentary-style coalition-governments impossible, winner-take all districts, absence of proportional representation, open primaries in which party membership is regulated states not parties themselves — allowing both Klansmen and Communists to be members of the Democratic Party, In the GOP, white libertarian upper-middle-class suburbanites contend with white working-class fundamentalists for influence in that party. Veterans of the left will remember that the 1968 Peace and Freedom Party and the 1980 Citizens Party arose at moments of greater left-wing strength and did not significantly alter the national electoral landscape. Nor has, unfortunately, the New Party, which many DSAers work with in states where “fusion” of third party and major party votes is possible (such as the DSA co-sponsored Working Families Party in N.Y. State).
DSA recognizes that some insurgent politicians representing labor, environmentalists, gays and lesbians, and communities of color may choose to run under Democratic auspices, as in the 1988 Jesse Jackson campaign, or operate as Democrats like Senator Paul Wellstone, and the 59 Democratic members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, one-half of whom are Black and Latino and all of whom possess strong labor backing and operative social democratic politics.
Electoral tactics are only a means for DSA; the building of a powerful anti-corporate and ultimately socialist movement is the end. Where third party or non-partisan candidates represent significant social movements DSA locals have and will continue to build such organizations and support such candidates. DSA honored independent socialist Congressperson Bernie Sanders of Vermont at our last convention banquet, and we have always raised significant funds nationally for his electoral campaigns. At the same time, we were pleased to have Democratic Congressperson and Progressive Caucus member Bob Filner of San Diego introduce Sanders at the convention, and note that Progressive Caucus member Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) will be honored at our annual Debs-Thomas-Harrington dinner this Spring in Chicago.
DSA is a modest, sometimes effective organization, whose members have greatest influence in community-level electoral politics. DSA is not an electoral organization, but rather a democratic socialist political organization which aims to bring socialism into the mainstream of American politics. We endeavor to do so through a two-pronged strategy of education and organizing. Much of our work is cultural and ideological: forums, debates, publications. But our voice can only be heard if we simultaneously play a central, activist role within struggles relevant to working people, communities of color, women, gays and lesbians and other oppressed constituencies. We operate within progressive coalitions as an open socialist presence and bring to these movements an analysis and strategy which recognizes the fundamental need to democratize global corporate power. We do not see ourselves as a vanguard speaking for the masses nor do we romantically believe that a small socialist organization can unilaterally transform the U.S. electoral map.
DSA strives to be a crucial socialist leaven within a mass movement for social justice. In the 2000 elections, most electorally-active, progressive constituencies will endeavor to elect progressives to Congress and to the state legislatures. These state legislatures will engage in the post-census redistricting which will influence electoral politics throughout the coming decade. For better or worse, it is unlikely that presidential politics in the year 2000 will structurally transform the landscape of American politics, however important the outcome.
DSA will continue to be a voice inside — and outside — the electoral process, to argue against panaceas of ‘fixed’ markets, and for a bottom-up democratic, decentralized and environmentally sane economy. (Source: 2000 DSA Election Statement.)
DSA has long recognized that the corporate, neoliberal wing of the Democratic Party is not an
ally for radical democratic change. Its support for NAFTA, similar destructive trade legislation,
and cuts in government aid to low-income citizens in the face of growing poverty and income
inequality; its fronting for corporate power and “free market” ideology; its resistance to allowing
the party to make a systemic critique of the war in Iraq, the “war on terror,” or the corporate
stranglehold on civil society put it on the other side of a widening political divide. While
Obama’s largest funders come from this wing of the party, the social forces fueling his campaign
– people of color, union activists, and anti-war Democrats – have long opposed the neoliberal
stranglehold on the Democratic Party.
Thus, DSA has no illusion that a Democratic presidential victory, combined with bulked-up
Democratic majorities in both houses of the Congress, will in itself bring about significant
democratic reform. We do believe that such a political landscape would provide the most
favorable terrain upon which mobilized, assertive social movements can pressure the government
to appoint decent federal judges and agency administrators and enact desperately needed
universal health care legislation, labor law reform, and a federally funded Marshall Plan to
develop green technologies and green jobs.
Had the U.S. a genuine multiparty system, neoliberal positions would be held by a centrist party,
and DSA would be organizing as part of a left electoral force against it. Given the U.S.’s
restrictive election laws, the only electoral fight possible against corporate domination has to
happen in and around the Democratic Party, on the federal, state, and (allowing for the rare
exception) county and city levels.
An Obama presidency will not on its own force legislation facilitating single-payer health care
(at least at the federal level) or truly progressive taxation and major cuts in wasteful and
unneeded defense spending. But if DSA and other democratic forces can work in the fall
elections to increase the ranks of the Congressional Progressive and Black and Latino caucuses,
progressive legislation (backed by strong social movement mobilization) might well pass the
next Congress.
Senator Barack Obama has attracted considerable support as a presidential candidate who
promises to end “politics as usual.” He has invigorated a significant youthful, multiracial cadre
of supporters, as well as gained considerable support from liberal activists. The massive
outpouring of small contributions in support of his campaign signals the potential power of his
message, and his recent call for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies is encouraging.
Yet his campaign has centered more around gestures and symbols than on concrete policy
alternatives; and where he has been concrete, as in health care, his plan falls short of universal
coverage. And he often employs pro-market rhetoric to defend his programs and their failure to
cover everyone.
While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American political
system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in
November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical
political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda. We know that a
proactive and progressive government can come only on the heels of a broad coalition for social
justice united against a reactionary Republicanism as well as a Democratic neoliberalism. Such a
movement will also have to fight for a public finance system that can limit the power of
corporate fundraising and lobbyists over both major political parties.
Thus, DSA offers its Economic Justice Agenda and its “four pillars” as a framework for such a
progressive policy agenda. This program calls for:
1. Restoring progressive taxation to the levels before the Reagan administration and
enacting massive cuts in wasteful defense spending;
2. Enacting single-payer universal health insurance and expanding public initiatives in child
care, elder care and pension security;
3. Passing the Employee Free Choice Act as part of a broader effort to rebuild a powerful
labor movement capable of achieving equity in the labor market; and
4. Implementing a U.S. foreign policy that promotes global institutions that advance labor,
environmental, and human rights and regulate transnational corporations.
True democracy is not about one woman or man promising change for the American public. That
takes consistent pressure from below. Who holds the presidency does matter, if only as a more
accessible target for pressure. A Democratic presidency and Congress would also create popular
expectations that rising inequality and injustice will be curbed. If the Democrats frustrate those
hopes (as they did in the early 1960s), mass mobilization is likely to grow rather than subside.
Nor should the Left be so involved in the national presidential campaign that it ignores the fall
primaries and general election races for the U.S. House and Senate. We need more progressives
in Congress as well as increased Democratic majorities.
The November election can’t be the end of a fight, but its beginning, and connections made on a
local and national level leading up to November can position the Left to play a role in struggles
to come. (Source: DSA Statement on the 2008 Presidential Election)
The New Zeal blog is New Zealand based by Trevor Loudon. He states "I'm a libertarian activist and political researcher from Christchurch New Zealand." There appears to be no partisan incentive to publish this article and the writer encouraged others to disseminate the photos to the US press BEFORE the election. Besides it being picked up by the World Net Daily, no mainstream media picked up on this article. The reason why is easy to see -- the names listed in this blog are the "who's-who" of academics. Running with this article would unleash a torrent of invective -- and be suicide for any media outlet that even thought about pursuing this. It was treated as a nut case -- but there may be a kernel of truth somewhere in this article -- even if it is Obama is a political opportunist.
Below are scans from New Party News Spring 1996.
They prove that Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois New Party and was endorsed by them in his 1996 Illinois State Senate race. Front page-scanned from a photocopy
Front page close up-scanned from a photocopy
Front page ultra close up-scanned from a photocopy
Note that the text refers to Barack Obama as a New Party member, while Willie Delgado is only "NP endorsed". The New Party clearly drew a distinction. Obama was on on the wrong side of the dividing line.
Page 2, scanned from a photocopy.
Page 2 closeup-scanned from the original.
The New Party was the creation of the quasi-Marxist Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and the radical community organisation ACORN. The Communist Party splinter group Committees of Correspondence (CoC) was also involved. I quote from Chicago DSA's New Ground of September/October 1995:
The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat...Although ACORN and SEIU Local 880 were the harbingers of the NP there was a strong presence of CoC and DSA (15% DSA)... Four political candidates were "there" seeking NP support."
Here is part of an undated New Party document probably from 1995. Scanned from a photocopy.
It lists approximately one hundred"community leaders, organizers, unionists, retirees, scholars, artists, parents, students, doctors, writers and other activists who are building the NP."
Those listed include;
Elaine Bernard-A Labour academic and prominent DSA member. (SITE NOTE: Elaine Bernard is the executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School. Her writings often focus on women and the traditionally female jobs, to which she brings a feminist (some might say quasi-Marxist, or at least highly class-conscious) theoretical perspective. (Source: Wikipedia.)
Noam Chomsky-Linguist and activist, member of both DSA and CoC. (SITE NOTE: Noam Chomsky American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, political activist, author, and lecturer. He is an Institute Professor emeritus and professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Chomsky is well known in the academic and scientific community as the father of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist, and a libertarian socialist intellectual. (Source: Wikipedia.)
Barbara Ehrenreich-Author, activist and DSA leader. Early this year Ehrenreich was one of the four founders of Progressives for Obama (SITE NOTE: American feminist, socialist and political activist. She is a widely read columnist and essayist, and the author of nearly 20 books. In February 2008, Ehrenreich expressed support for Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign, writing in her blog: There's no mystery about the direction in which Obama might take us: He's written a breathtakingly honest autobiography; he has a long legislative history, and now, a meaty economic program. // We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here! (Source: Wikipedia.)
Bill Fletcher-Former Maoist, a labour activist and leading DSA member. Early this year Fletcher was one of the four founders of Progressives for Obama
Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Danny Glover are the founders of Progressives for Obama. "We descend from the proud tradition of independent social movements that have made America a more just and democratic country." TOM HAYDEN is author of Ending the War in Iraq, a five-time Democratic convention delegate, former state senator, and board member of the Progressive Democrats of America. Tom Hayden is also famous as being part of the radical "Chicago Seven" during the 1969-1970. (Source: Wikipedia.) BILL FLETCHER, who originated the call for founding "Progressives for Obama", is the executive editor of Black Commentator, and founder of the Center for Labor Renewal; BARBARA EHRENREICH is the author of Dancing in the Streets[2007] and other popular works and, with Hayden, a member of The Nation's editorial board. DANNY GLOVER is the respected actor, activist, and chairman of the board of TransAfrica.
(Source: Huffington Post.)
Maude Hurd-Longtime ACORN president. Awarded for her work by Boston DSA. ACORN is heavily involved in the Obama campaign. (SITE NOTE: "ACORN’s Political Action Committee announced that it endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President. ACORN PAC’s representatives went through an extensive process of interviewing each of the major Democratic candidates. ACORN is a national anti-poverty organization which has hundreds of thousands of members in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods in 104 cities. “Last night, Sen. Obama received the more than necessary two-thirds of the majority needed from our elected national leadership to secure the endorsement,” said Maude Hurd, ACORN’s National President. (Source: BarackObama.com.)
Manning Marable-A founder of DSA and a leader of CoC. Regarded as a driving force within the New Party. Now an Obama supporter. (SITE NOTE: American political scholar. He holds the position of Professor of Public Affairs, History and African-American Studies at Columbia University, where he founded and directs the Institute for Research in African-American Studies. He has published widely, and is politically active in a variety of progressive causes. His current project is a biography of the black rights activist Malcolm X ., entitled ' '. Marable was recently elected Chair of Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), the incorporated non-profit arm of Students for a Democratic Society . He sits on the Board of Directors for the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network (HSAN), a non-profit coalition of prominent public figures dedicated to utilizing hip hop as an agent for social change. In a January 2008 column entitled, "Barack Obama's Problem – And Ours", Marable endorsed Senator Barack Obama's bid for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. (Souce: Wikipedia.)
Frances Fox Piven-A senior DSA member. Regarded as the brains behind ACORN. Piven is now an endorser of the Progressives for Obama website. (SITE NOTE: Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. She earned her PhD from the University of Chicago in 1962. In 2006-2007 she served as the President of the American Sociological Association. She was married to her long-time collaborator, Richard Cloward, who died in 2001. Throughout her career, Piven has combined academic work with activism. One example: In 1983, she was cofounder of Human SERVE, an organization dedicated to getting people to register to vote. The group's proposition was that people should be asked to register to vote when applying for social services or using the services of the Department of Motor Vehicles. Since it is particularly the poor who often fail to register to vote—Piven knew this from her research—they tended to be disenfranchised . Human SERVE's initiative was taken up by the Clinton administration and made it into the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, colloquially called the "motor voter bill" (Ehrenreich 2006). (Source: Wikipedia.)
Raphael Pizzaro-New York labour activist and former CPUSA member. An official of both CoC and DSA. (SITE NOTE: Allegedly New York Labor activist and former Communist Party of USA (CPUSA) member. "...Rafael Pizzaro from Local 1199 Hospital Workers Union in New York, Co-Chair of the Committees of Correspondence and DSA, related his experience as a member of a DSA/NOC joint youth observer delegation to the Mexican elections." (Source: Chicago DSA)
Gloria Steinem-Author and senior DSA member. An Obama supporter and volunteer. (SITE NOTE: (Source: American feminist icon, journalist, and social and political activist. Rising to national prominence in the 1970s, she became a leading political leader of the decade, and one of the most important heads of the second-wave of the women's rights movement. She is the founder and original publisher of Ms. magazine, the founder of the pro-choice organization Choice USA, co-founder of the Women's Media Center, and was an influential co-convener of the National Women's Political Caucus. .)
Cornel West-Academic and prominent DSA member. West now serves as an advisor to the Obama campaign. (SITE NOTE: Cornel Ronald West (born June 2, 1953) is a scholar, public intellectual, philosopher, critic, pastor, and civil rights activist. West currently serves as the Class of 1943 University Professor at Princeton University, where he teaches in the Center for African American Studies and in the department of Religion. West is known for his combination of political and moral insight and criticism, and his contribution to the post-1960s civil rights movement. The bulk of his work focuses upon the role of race, gender, and class in American society and the means by which people act and react to their “radical conditionedness”. West draws intellectual contributions from such diverse traditions as the African American Baptist Church, pragmatism and transcendentalism. He earned a Ph.D. in 1980 from Princeton, where he was influenced by Richard Rorty's pragmatism. He later published his dissertation (completed in 1980) as The Ethical Dimensions of Marxist Thought. West remains a widely cited scholar in the popular press, in African-American studies, and in studies of black theology, although his work as an academic philosopher has been almost completely ignored (with the exception of his early history of American pragmatism, The American Evasion of Philosophy). Cornel West publicly supports 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama. He spoke to over 1,000 of his supporters at the Apollo Theater in Harlem, NYC on November 29, 2007. (Source: Wikipeda.)
Quentin Young-Chicago doctor, prominent DSA member. Quentin Young is a neighbour, friend and supporter of Barack Obama. he attended the famous 1995 meeting in the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn where Barack Obama was introduced by Alice Palmer as the chosen successor to her Illinois State Senate seat.
Carl Davidson, former Chicago CoC National Committee member, New Party activist, associate of Barack Obama and friend of Bill Ayers, now serves as Progressives for Obama webmaster. (SITE NOTE: In the mid '90s Davidson played a key role in the Chicago branch of the New Party. This was a Marxist led poltical coalition designed to endorse and elect leftist public officials. The bulk of its members came from CoC, the equally radical Democratic Socialists of America and the US's largest militant left grass-roots organisation, ACORN. (Source: ZTruth.)
The originals of these documents are held in the Washington DC area. I personally viewed them when I visited Washington in May 2008. (Source: New Zeal blog (23 Oct 2008).)
Obama's campaign has responded to the allegations, denying the presidential candidate was ever a member of the New Party. But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, list him as a New Party member and include quotes from him. (Source: World Net Daily.)
Barack Obama's "Fight the Smear" page had nothing on the New Party -- then on 27 Oct 2008, the Obama team added a denial and then attacked the messenger but never explained the archived page listing his name as a member of the New Party and its supposed ties to ACORN or that Marxist Carl Davidson said he met Obama through this party. (Source: ZTruth.))
The jury is still out whether Obama is a member of the elitist academia-activist group that founded the New Party to further its progressive goals through political action. However, Obama is a man who attracts talent -- and the people listed as DSA are certainly amongst the most talented category. Obama also looks for a background in community activism -- and all of these people qualify as well. In addition, Obama is looking for "people of color" -- and many of these activists fall into that category as well. (SITE NOTE: As of Mar 2009, the vote was in -- Obama is a Socialist who has been passing himself off as a liberal. Many people were disillusioned with Obama -- and the mainstream media had the audacity to even ask the question of whether Obama was a socialist to his face.)
Barack Obama's Stealth Socialism Investors Business Daily editorial comment on 28 Jul 2008 speaks about Obama's use of the term "economic justice." "Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism.
In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all). Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns. It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor. Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.
Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means. Among his proposed "investments":
"Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
"Free" college tuition.
"Universal national service" (a la Havana).
"Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
"Free" job training (even for criminals).
"Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
"Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
More subsidized public housing.
A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.
His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't. That's just for starters — first-term stuff. Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike. (Source: Investors Business Daily.)
The article then went on to show that in Hawaii, he was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a marxist poet and webt on to "pal around with" Marxist professors. It even continues on about the leftist-leaning relatives in Kenya as support.
A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities." As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment. "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."
After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago. His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America. The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.
After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale. While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics. (Source: Investors Business Daily.)
The Dream Begins: How Hawai'i Shaped Barack Obama is the first book to explore President-elect Barack Obama's friendship with Chicago union organizer-poet Frank Marshall Davis. In 1948, Davis, an African American, and his wife, a white Chicago socialite named Helen Canfield Davis, visited Hawaii on a tip from Paul Robeson. They stayed the rest of their lives. Davis had been an editor with the Associated Negro Press in Chicago and wrote for the Gary (Ind.) American. In Hawaii, he became a champion of ethnic union workers while living in "The Waikiki Jungle" -- a cluster of dense housing near the Diamond Head end of Waikiki. "Barry's grandfather brought him here to see Davis," author Stu Glauberman says during a drive through the neighborhood. Davis was an ally of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union that was organizing Hawaii's plantations and docks. (Source: Sun Times.)
Obama economic adviser David Bonior was socialist party member? The man recently appointed to President-elect Barack Obama's economic transition team was a bona fide member of a major U.S. socialist organization, according to literature from the group. Former Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., reportedly being considered for the Labor secretary position in the incoming Obama administration, has had a longstanding close relationship with the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA, an organization dedicated to transforming America into a socialist society.
Now WND has learned the DSA's official newsletter in 2007 identified Bonior as a DSA member at the organization's Boston branch. Neither the DSA in Boston nor Bonior returned repeated WND calls seeking comment. Obama's transition team did not return a phone call or e-mail inquiry. Earlier this month, the Detroit chapter of the DSA honored Bonior and his wife, Judy, at its annual dinner. Bonior has been honored at several DSA functions the past six years, including in 2003, when he was the keynote speaker at the U.S. socialist organization's national convention in Detroit.
At the 2003 convention, Bonior laid out his plan for a North American Parliamentary Union, according to a DSA transcript of the event. Bonior was a longtime critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, a trilateral trade bloc created by the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments. But he argued that as long as NAFTA was in effect, a joint parliament should be formed to oversee the agreement.
Bonior has other ties to the DSA. The socialist group reportedly campaigned for him in 2002 after he left Congress and ran unsuccessfully for governor of Michigan. The New Zeal blog discovered a 2002 DSA newsletter that reports the organization's work "focused on Rep. David Bonior's gubernatorial campaign." "The local endorsed Rep. Bonior almost 18 months ago. DSA helped with the early fundraising for his campaign, collecting signatures for his nominating petitions, distributing literature at Detroit churches, and walking door to door in Macomb County on his behalf on the weekend before the primary," stated the DSA newsletter.
In 2006, the socialist group formed a political action committee to which only DSA members in good standing are allowed to contribute, according to FEC guidelines. The DSA states the committee, which seeks to support federal political candidates supported by the socialist group, is careful about who contributes to the fund. "Because the law is so specific, all contributions are carefully screened to make sure that they are from (DSA) members," states a 2006 DSA newsletter. New Zeal found that on June 19, 2006, Bonior contributed $1,000 to the DSA's committee.
First elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976, Bonior served from 1991 to 2002 as Democratic whip, the second-ranking party position in the House. He was known as a supporter of labor unions, later chairing the board of the pro-union American Rights at Work, whose board members include the American Union Movement AFL-CIO's president, John Sweeney, a DSA member.
Bonior was a champion of the Employee Free Choice Act. The measure seeks to make the creation of unions more lenient than current requirements, such as lowering the percentage of employees that must join. It would require an employer to begin bargaining with a new union 10 days after the union is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative. If the union and employer cannot agree upon the terms of a bargaining contract within 90 days, either party can request federal mediation, which could lead to binding arbitration.
In 2002, WND reported former FBI officials charged that Bonior, while in Congress, had hampered efforts to investigate terrorist suspects in Detroit. (Source: WND.)
After Obama was elected, the facade he erected during his presidential campaign started to flake away. In Feb 2009, his Stimulus Package made it VERY apparent that Obama intended to reshape the US in the Socialist mold. He moved to place the Census Bureau directly under his control -- funded by $1 billion in supplementary funding in his Stimulus Package. He disguised his National Health Care plan -- ala Tom Daschle -- in the Stimulus Package and shoved it down the throats of America. Then the talk started of nationalizing the banks. With this in mind, it is time to relook at an Oct 2008 article by Fred Hutchinson entitled "Obama a "socialist"?"
Is Barack Obama a socialist? Well, yes and no. If you mean by that what Americans used to call "creeping socialism" and the Brits called Fabian socialism, yes, Obama is definitely that. Creeping socialism and Fabian socialism is a movement towards socialism by gradual democratic means.
The pace of the creep towards socialism which Obama will call for as president will be determined by 1) how far to the left he actually is on the political spectrum — a secret known only to God, 2) how much cooperation he gets from the liberal-Democratic Congress, 3) the public popularity he enjoys, and 4) the political winds of the day. We can say with confidence that Obama is very sensitive to the prevailing political winds. No doubt a future political biographer will tell the Obama story as a sailor skillfully steering according to the shifting winds.
SITE NOTE: In passing his Stimulus Package in Feb 2009, he showed he was a Machiavellian politician who did NOT enjoy any bipartisan support and (1) he was on the far left of the political spectrum with his National Health Care plan disguised in the bill; (2) he appealed to the Democrats greed for their share of the pie and received full support; (3) he maintained a 60 percent approval rating for his first two weeks in office -- though it was slipping; (4) the political winds were based upon the real world financial crisis -- though conservative economists say his Pork Stimulus Package will do nothing -- and even will hurt in the long run -- the American economy.
The Earmarks of creeping socialism are increasing government regulation of business, an increasingly graduated income tax, rapidly increasing government spending, and an increasing number of government social engineering projects. Obama's record and public utterances show that he supports all these things — except when the shifting political winds of are blowing contrary to these purposes.
Newsweek Magazine (9 Feb 2009)
What is socialism?
Tidy-minded political political philosophers define socialism as government ownership and management of business and the means of production. Government regulation of business is not full socialism, but regulation can be a serious step in the direction of full socialism.
In the present crisis, the government has bought preferred stock in banks, acquired huge blocks of bad mortgages from Fanny Mae, and taken over the management of AIG, a gigantic insurance company. If the government gives up these acquisitions when the crisis has passed, it is not socialism. If the government greedily hangs on to these treasures, it is socialism.
Is Obama another Clement Attlee?
Clement Attlee, British Prime Minister (1945-1951) nationalized the steel industry, and mines, railways, canals, cable, wireless, electricity, and gas. He also nationalized medicine and insurance and rationed food. By 1951, 20% of the British economy was in government hands. Attlee was a socialist.
Obama said — or seemed to say — that the socialization of medicine would be the first thing he would do as president, but because his positions are reinterpreted or revised every other week, he may yet renege on this policy. Socializing medicine in America will require political courage, and it is not clear from his record that Obama has it.
(SITE NOTE: He shoved it down America's throat -- without debate or committee discussion -- in his Stimulus Package passed in Feb 2009. He implemented his goals via deceit with the aid of the Democratic congress playing upon their greed in getting a cut of the pork barrel monies.)
Apart from medicine, what else might Obama be tempted to nationalize? Since AIG, America's largest insurance company, is now in government hands, Obama might be tempted to nationalize insurance. He might establish permanent government ownership of Fannie May and other parts of the mortgage industry.
(SITE NOTE: The TARP did NOT get involved in the "toxic assets" (mortgages) under Bush though Paulson was given a Democratic mandate to do so. In Feb 2009, Obama took aim on the Mortgage industry with his plans to attack the "toxic assets" problem.)
Obama might also restore the "Fairness Doctrine" of the FCC which had been used to silence the conservative voice. Since President Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1985, conservative talk radio and Fox News have been a thorn in the side of liberal Democrats and a thorn in the side of Barack Obama — in contrast to the uncritical praise of Obama by the mainstream media, which was not much affected by the fairness doctrine.
(SITE NOTE: In Feb 2009, Obama reversed himself on his pledge to NOT support the Fairness Doctrine. Democrats were lining up to support the Fairness Doctrine -- but there was also a lot of heated debate over "freedom of speech." Though the Huffington Post claims the ado is over a purely imaginary fuss, 124 Republicans from pushing legislation that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, a policy that has been dead for 20 years.)
Is Obama like Attlee in foreign policy?
Atlee closed down the British Empire very rapidly, even for the colonies which were not ready for independence. After the partition of India, millions died. Atlee betrayed the new state of Israel by pulling out British troops and handing Israel over to the safekeeping of the United Nations, which proved to be Israel's least reliable friend.
Is Obama likely to adopt policies like this? Yes.
One of the few policies that he has consistently stated that he will pull our troops out of Iraq according to a rigid time table, whether or not Iraq is ready to defend itself and maintain social stability.
Will Obama protect Israel? He says he will, but as old Scotsmen like to say, "I hae me doots" (I have my doubts).
(SITE NOTE: After Obama lifted restrictions on Syria in Feb 2009, the Israelis have VERY serious doubts about Obama's foreign policy. His overtures to Iran and support for the PLO and Hamas viewpoint -- at least the appearance of it -- has caused many Israeli supporters in the US to question Obama's motives. His actions to close GITMO and dismiss all the cases of the terrorists "without prejudice" was smooth-talked over, but the mainstream media did not cover the story that Obama was flat wrong in his statements -- and one of the attendees called him on it. The press simply ignored it.)
During the primaries, Obama said he wants to personally talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, without preconditions. He has, of course, changed his position on this many times as he sails according to the prevailing winds. However, considering that Ahmadinejad has frequently promised to destroy Israel, the fact that Obama would at any time consider giving Ahmadinejad the honor and legitimacy of a personal presidential visit suggests that Obama is less than zealous about defending Israel.
Does the fact that Obama's father was partly Arab and a Muslim influence Obama's attitude towards Israel? I don't know. But perhaps Obama's friend, the pro-terrorist professor Rashid Khalidi, knows the answer. Rashid's organization "mourns the establishment of Israel as a catastrophe." Obama sat on a board that gave a grant to Rashid's organization. Rashid was a fundraiser for Obama's political organization. A cozy arrangement indeed. These men are friends.
(SITE NOTE: This is a very cloudy area. Obama's entrance into Harvard seems to be directly linked to Khaldi's support -- and there may have been other links. However, Obama has refused to allow his school records to be opened. Subpoenas have been served by Orly Taitz (in a suit on behalf of Alan Keyes) to Occidental as a start -- and Obama's lawyers are now representing the school to quash the subpoenas.)
Now then, is Obama going to fight terrorists and defend Israel? I hae me doots.
Is Obama a Marxist?
We only know three things on this subject: (1) As a youth and a young man, Obama had two mentors, both of whom were Marxists — Frank Marshall Davis, and The Reverend Wright. (2) As a young man, Obama was influenced by the writings of the Marxist Saul Alinski. (3) Obama periodically makes comments that, to my ears, have a faintly Marxist ring such as "economic justice," "coalitions for redistributive change," "spread the wealth," and a comparison of the unsegregated fifties America with Nazi Germany.
(SITE NOTE: The election is past, but as President Obama still continues to allude to "spreading" images -- health care, security, etc. He has not given up on his "spread the wealth" images as his Stimulus Package has his AMT tax provisions that penalize the rich to give to the poor. Unfortunately, it is a flawed plan that economists feel will cripple America...but Obama is riding the winds of Democratic power and is doing anything he damn well pleases.)
There are many kinds of socialism, and Marxism is one. Therefore, Marxist ideas might well play a part in the development of a young socialist such as the young Obama plausibly might have been. (Source: Renew America: Fred Hutchinson.)
New York Times: 'Some Conservatives Have Implied' Obama's a Socialist (Mar 2009) In The New York Times today appears "The President Is on the Line to Follow Up on Socialism," by Jeff Zeleny. The article's first three paragraphs:
Less than 90 minutes after Air Force One landed, the telephone rang. President Obama was on the line, wanting to add one more point to a response he gave during an interview with The New York Times.
On a flight from Ohio to Washington on Friday, Mr. Obama was asked whether his domestic policies suggested that he was a socialist, as some conservatives have implied.
“The answer would be no,” he said, laughing for a moment before defending his administration for “making some very tough choices” on the budget.
President Obama was so concerned that he had appeared to dismiss a question from New York Times reporters about whether he was a socialist that he called the newspaper from the Oval Office to clarify his policies. "It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question," he told reporters, who had interviewed the president aboard Air Force One on Friday.
Opening the unusual presidential call to reporters by saying that there was "just one thing I was thinking about as I was getting on the copter," he said it wasn't he who started the federal government's intervention into the nation's financial system. "I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasn't under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks. It wasn't on my watch. And it wasn't on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement -– the prescription drug plan -- without a source of funding. And so I think it's important just to note when you start hearing folks throw these words around that we've actually been operating in a way that has been entirely consistent with free-market principles and that some of the same folks who are throwing the word 'socialist' around can't say the same."
The New York Times asked, "So whose watch are we talking about here?" but Obama wouldn't name names. "Well, I just think it's clear by the time we got here, there already had been an enormous infusion of taxpayer money into the financial system. And the thing I constantly try to emphasize to people if that coming in, the market was doing fine, nobody would be happier than me to stay out of it. I have more than enough to do without having to worry the financial system. The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk taking has precipitated a crisis." He concluded the brief call by saying, "I think that covers it."
The phone call came after the president was asked aboard his plane: "Are you a socialist as some people have suggested?" He was clear in his first answer: "You know, let's take a look at the budget – the answer would be no." "Is there anything wrong with saying, 'Yes'?" a Times reporter pressed. "Let's just take a look at what we've done," Obama said, ticking off efforts his administration has made to stabilize the economy. But he acknowledged that, as he told Joe the Plumber, he plans to try to spread the wealth around. "If you look on the revenue side what we're proposing, what we're looking at is essentially to go back to the tax rates that existed during the 1990s when, as I recall, rich people were doing very well. In fact everybody was doing very well. . . . We said that we'd give a tax cut to 95 percent of working Americans. That's exactly what we have done." (Source: Washington Times.)
Obama's protestation aside, the article should have been balanced with an acknowledgment that implications the new president is a socialist are hardly limited to some conservatives.
Less than a decade ago, for example, the Chicago affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Obama for the state senate. They admiringly quoted him: "Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities."
At the beginning of last year's primary season, the Communist People's Weekly World printed a letter celebrating an early Obama win:
Happy New Year and congratulations on a job well done. These have been trying times when the hyenas of war have again been turned loose on humanity by a greedy ruling class.
Now, beyond all the optimism I was capable of mustering, Mr. Obama won Iowa!. . .
Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. .
In August, the same publication carried an editorial written by Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA. Webb used the opportunity to give his comrades their marching orders:
In order to advance one iota of a pro-people’s agenda, the people’s movement has to elect Obama and to enlarge the Democratic Party majorities in Congress. Without that everything else is wishful thinking.
Days after the inauguration, Webb addressed a People's Weekly World event held in Cleveland and began:
I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people on Inauguration Day, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think – and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought – that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another.
It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.
Later in his address, Webb observed:
We now have not simply a friend, but a people's advocate in the White House.
Joelle Fishman is the chair of the political action committee of the Communist Party USA. On the party's Web site she analyzed the election results. The article started:
Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!
We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-people’s movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all people’s movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.
The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and people’s unity. . .
The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.
Socialists and Communists may argue that Obama isn't radical enough, that he's much too conservative to be deemed a socialist. Yet their enthusiastic support and words belie that contention. Not just "some conservatives" have implied Obama is a socialist. People on the far left have given some might big hints. (Source: Newsbusters: NY TIMES.)
From Little ACORNs, Big Scandals Grow -- Barack Obama: torn between two models of community organizing.
The in-your-face Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is currently being investigated for voter-registration fraud in 13 states. ACORN is often referred to as the spawn of Saul Alinsky (1909-72), the godfather of radical community organizers, whose most famous aphorism was "Keep the pressure on." ACORN's founders certainly had Alinsky's principles in mind when they founded the organization in 1970.
There is a web of connections between Alinsky, ACORN, and the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama. From 1985 to 1988, Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project, a church-based consortium operated by several Alinsky disciples on Chicago's poverty-plagued South Side. The DCP was imbued with Alinsky's philosophy of helping poor people band together at the grassroots level to confront a city government that frequently neglected them. (Obama contributed to the anthology After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois, touting the "impressive results" his Alinsky-inspired project had achieved.) Just before he left Chicago for Harvard Law School, Obama also went through training with the organization Alinsky founded in 1940, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), and which carries on his legacy today.
Alinsky's rules for radicals:
1 ) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2 ) Never go outside the experience of your people. It may result in confusion, fear and retreat.
3 ) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
4 ) Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules.
5 ) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6 ) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7 ) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8 ) Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9 ) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10 ) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11 ) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
12 ) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13 ) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Back in Chicago in the early 1990s, Obama represented ACORN in a voter-registration suit and directed a voter-registration drive for an ACORN affiliate, Project Vote. He sat on the board of the Chicago-based Woods Foundation that made hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of grants to Project Vote and (according to a report published in an ACORN journal in 2004) ran a session on power as part of ACORN's annual leadership training sessions for several years before his first run for public office in 1996.
To hear it from people connected to IAF, though, Obama took an unfortunate turn when he linked himself to ACORN, whose activist shenanigans would have Alinsky spinning in his grave. These range from allegedly procuring thousands of phony and multiple signatures on voter registration lists (one 19-year-old in Cleveland claimed to have been bribed with cash and cigarettes to register 72 times over 18 months) to using taxpayer funds to strong-arm mortgage companies into lending to the un-credit-worthy, helping precipitate the current financial meltdown.
"Shakedowns" and "blackmail" were the words used by IAF's director, Edward Chambers, a protégé of Alinsky, about ACORN and its activities when I called the IAF's Chicago headquarters (IAF today trains organizers in a loose network of some 57 affiliates in 21 states). It was the day before the New York Times published a story about a June 18 internal report by an ACORN lawyer which contained a laundry list of "potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes; money transfers among [ACORN's 174 affiliates, some of them tax-exempt, others not], and potential conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates," as Times reporter Stephanie Strom put it.
One area of potential impropriety detailed in Strom's story is the relationship between Project Vote, registered as a tax-exempt charity with the Internal Revenue Service since 1994 and thus barred from engaging in partisan political activities, and ACORN itself, a membership organization incorporated under Louisiana law that is nonprofit but not tax-exempt and is thus free to be as partisan as it wants. ACORN's political action committee, for example, endorsed Obama in February, and the Obama campaign in turn paid an ACORN consulting affiliate, Citizens Services Inc., more than $832,000 for its work in helping Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
ACORN has a contract with Project Vote to conduct voter-registration drives using ACORN employees, who initially claimed to have signed up 1.3 million new voters at a cost of $16 million, then lowered that figure to around 450,000 (according to an October 23 New York Times story) after eliminating fraudulent registrations, duplicates, and incomplete forms. The internal report, by Washington lawyer Elizabeth Kingsley, pointed out that until very recently, Project Vote's executive director, Zach Pollett, was also ACORN's political director. (Pollett resigned from Project Vote in July but continues to work for the charity as a consultant via another ACORN affiliate.) Furthermore, the report noted, Project Vote has had only one independent director (who served only briefly) throughout its entire tax-exempt history. The rest of the board has consisted entirely of ACORN staffers plus two dues-paying ACORN members. Some of them told Strom they had no idea they were on the Project Vote board, which, like the boards of many ACORN affiliates, met seldom, if ever, and failed to keep minutes.
The potential for abuse in an interlocking arrangement governed top-down from New Orleans is as obvious as a thicket of "Change" signs at an Obama rally. ACORN's using Project Vote to trawl for voters for ACORN-backed candidates--such as, um, Barack Obama--would be a clear violation of the IRS's ban on partisan activity by a charity, as Kingsley noted in her report. Strom pointed out that ACORN is already facing demands for back taxes from the IRS and "various state tax authorities."
ACORN is secretive about its financial condition, which, because it is not tax-exempt, it has no legal obligation to make public. When I called ACORN's New Orleans headquarters to ask about its funding arrangements, its press spokesman, Charles Jackson, refused to answer my questions unless I put them in writing, and after I did via email, Jackson was not heard from again. The New York Times in a 2006 article, however, stated that ACORN's budget for that year, not counting its research spinoff and the ACORN Housing Corporation, another tax-exempt charity among ACORN's affiliates, amounted to $37.5 million. Only $3 million of that came from the claimed 500,000 ACORN members' dues, according to the Times story, with the rest rolling in from foundations, private donations, and arrangements called "partnerships" in which corporate targets of ACORN activism, such as the Household Financial Corporation (one of ACORN's focuses is "predatory lending") pay money to ACORN for the organization to operate, say, loan-counseling programs.
A Wall Street Journal article published on July 31 noted an additional source of ACORN funding: U.S. taxpayers. Journal reporters Elizabeth Williamson and Brody Mullins analyzed the IRS filings of the tax-exempt ACORN Housing Corporation for 2007 and noted that some 36 percent of the funds raised by the housing affiliate last year--$2.8 million out of $7.7 million--came from the federal government, mostly in the form of grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (According to an October 14 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, that represented only a small part of the estimated $16 million in federal grant dollars that various ACORN affiliates bearing names such as American Institute for Social Justice and American Environmental Justice Project took in from 1997 through 2007.) Wade Rathke, ACORN's founder and, until this past summer, CEO, writing on his blog "Chief Organizer" on June 18, the very date of Kingsley's critical report, estimated that ACORN's total budget for 2008, counting all affiliates, would likely be a record $110 million.
Rathke was forced out of his job at around the same time he posted his optimistic budget projection because of another eyebrow-raising matter raised in Kingsley's report: the way ACORN hushed up the embezzlement of nearly $1 million from the organization by Rathke's brother Dale, who headed an ACORN affiliate that provides financial-management and accounting services to other ACORN units. The theft occurred in 2000, but ACORN's top management concealed it from both the board and law-enforcement authorities until this past May, when word leaked out at a meeting of ACORN organizers. Dale Rathke had even been allowed to keep working for ACORN, although at a reduced salary and in the lesser capacity of his brother's assistant, while the Rathke family agreed to pay back the organization at the rate of $30,000 a year (in other words, over 30-plus years).
The Rathkes were permanent fixtures at ACORN. Wade Rathke had cut his teeth in radical activism in 1967, when he helped George Wiley found the National Welfare Rights Organization, a quintessential 1960s group that mobilized hordes of welfare mothers to invade benefits offices with lists of demands. (Melees involving overturned desks, and broken glass often resulted from these encounters.) The movement failed to impress the general public, and the National Welfare Rights Organization went bankrupt in 1975. Meanwhile, Wade Rathke had founded ACORN and soon brought his brother on board.
Once the ACORN embezzlement became public in May, however, along with the news that the Rathkes, thanks to the snail's-pace terms of their restitution agreement, had reimbursed ACORN for only $210,000 out of the $948,000 stolen eight years ago, Dale Rathke was finally fired and Wade Rathke obliged to resign, although he continues to hold the title of chief organizer for ACORN International, yet another entity on the seemingly endless list of ACORN affiliates. Even here, Kingsley's report revealed that the version of the embezzlement that ACORN gave out to the public this past summer differed from what her perusal of internal ACORN documents revealed. On July 8, according to the Times, ACORN's new top executive, Bertha Lewis, had said that 90 percent of the money had come from ACORN itself and the remainder from its charity affiliates. In fact, Kingsley found, $215,000 had been charged to an American Express card paid by an ACORN pension fund that later wrote off the amount as a gift to ACORN in possible violation of federal pension-fund regulations. According to a recent article in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the embezzlement scandal cost ACORN, already encumbered with debt and tax problems, grants from some of its key funding foundations, and the organization has had to close several offices and lay off employees. (A friend of Wade Rathke has eased the cash-flow crisis somewhat by paying off the $738,000 the Rathkes still owed in restitution, according to the Chronicle.)
As for ACORN's protest tactics, the kind that have netted it decades' worth of counseling contracts and other cash handouts from corporations and municipalities, they indeed seem to fall into the category of "shakedowns." The 2006 New York Times article was about a cadre of utility customers wearing red ACORN T-shirts who descended on the Gary office of the Northern Indiana Public Service Company to pay their heating bills out of bagfuls of pennies. The aim was to force the utility, via hours of tedious coin-counting and unpleasant media coverage, to drop delinquency penalties for tardy bill-payers with hard-luck stories. A company spokesman pointed out that the utility already had an assistance program in place for poor people unable to pay for heat and said the ACORN tactics amounted to "bullying."
Nonetheless, such stunts, which seem to come straight from the yellowed pages of Tom Wolfe's send-up of 1960s radical activism, "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers," are remarkably effective even nearly 40 years after the Sixties officially ended. Corporate executives, bureaucratic lifers, and foundation grant-processors alike seem either cowed or impressed by such tactics as protesting a bankers' dinner with inflated rubber sharks, piling garbage in front of city hall, or yelling profanities at a mayor's wife and children. All of these were part of a prolonged ACORN protest in Baltimore a few years ago that, according to Sol Stern of the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, were the likely source of an annual $50,000 payout from the city to ACORN for providing housing counseling to the poor. On the very eve of the collapse of Wachovia Bank this September--done in by its fatal investments in home-mortgage instruments that the ACORN watchdog Consumers Rights League says were pushed by ACORN itself through its taxpayer-subsidized housing affiliate--ACORN was busy trying to mau-mau Wachovia into rewriting the terms of those swiftly defaulting loans by portraying the bank to the media as a piranha lender.
The IAF's Edward Chambers told me that scarcely any act in ACORN's three-ring circus of urban radicalism would have met with the approval of Alinsky, the man whose ideas supposedly underlie the rubber sharks and sacks of pennies. "They take other people's money instead of raising it from the people they're organizing," said Chambers. "They take federal money, money from foundations, and it corrupts them." The IAF insists that any organization that wants to affiliate with IAF--and benefit from IAF's training--come up with its own money, money voluntarily donated by people who believe in the group's causes so fervently that they are willing to dip into their own pockets to pay for it. "We work a lot with churches, with unions," said Chambers. "They hire their own organizers, and they hold them accountable. And we never endorse political candidates."
Indeed Alinsky himself was a far more complex and idiosyncratic figure than either his disciples or his ideological opponents (who assume that his last book, Rules for Radicals, published in 1971, was all about turning yourself into another Abbie Hoffman) typically admit. Alinsky, a self-styled radical who studied at the University of Chicago and began his professional career as a union organizer, was widely accused of being a Communist, but was in fact vehemently anti-Communist. Later on, during the 1960s, he was as much a foe of Lyndon Johnson's big-spending War on Poverty as he was of conservatives. He also detested the 1960s New Left for its antinomian cultural hedonism and its insistence on smashing the "system," as they termed it. Alinsky believed genuine radicals ought to work within for change. "Alinsky believed that the liberal welfare state led to dependency, and that people should stand up for themselves and have the confidence to assert their own interests," said Peter Skerry, a political scientist at Boston College.
Alinsky's self-selected territory as a community organizer during the 1940s was Chicago's Back of the Yards neighborhood, then a working-class slum abutting the city's stockyards and peopled with ethnic Poles, Lithuanians, and Slovaks. They might have felt marginalized economically (many worked low-grade jobs in the meat-packing industry) but they remained deeply conservative socially. Most were devout Catholics, and, in order to organize them to demand better municipal services, Alinsky allied himself with Bishop Bernard Sheil and the Catholic labor organizer Joe Meegan. Later, during the 1950s, as Chicago's meat-packing clout declined and its Eastern European ethnics moved elsewhere, Alinsky turned his attention to working-class blacks who were also socially conservative and church-oriented. Although confrontation with the prevailing establishment was a key component of Alinsky's efforts to turn lower-class communities into effective power blocs, he had little interest in class struggle. If a movie analogy is apt, Alinsky's ethos of activism was more On the Waterfront than Salt of the Earth.
Alinsky's legacy organization, the IAF, has continued his practices: working with churches, trying to shore up families and other traditional institutions, and insisting on fiscal independence. They have also worked to sand down the edges of the founder's harsh style to reposition the IAF as a service organization focused on training community organizers rather than provocation. "When I was on the board, I heard more criticism of Saul Alinsky than anything else," recalled Jean Bethke Elshtain, a philosopher at the University of Chicago's divinity school, and a political centrist and prolific writer associated with the "communitarian" movement of the 1980s and 1990s, who until recently served on IAF's board of trustees. Elshtain, whom Chambers personally recruited to serve as an IAF trustee, said she had been drawn to the IAF precisely because of its commitment to "shoring up families and schools and personal responsibility."
Because the IAF insists that its affiliates rely on grassroots contributions, not outside grants, its projects tend to be strictly local and relatively small-bore, centered around liberal Protestant and Catholic churches and their members. One of the most successful has been the Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS), a consortium of churches, founded in San Antonio, Texas, in 1974. COPS, the brainchild of the IAF-trained Ernesto Cortes Jr., is credited with giving political clout to San Antonio's Mexican-Americans, who had lived in the city for decades but who had enjoyed little power under the city's Anglo majority. Another successful IAF project is the Nehemiah Houses, which over the past 20 years has built nearly 4,000 moderate-income homes on once-desolate parcels of city-owned land in New York City. Nehemiah requires its buyers to demonstrate their commitment to home-ownership via modest but not negligible down payments, and so its projects have generally escaped the foreclosure blight that easier borrowing has brought to other low-income neighborhoods in recent years.
Some IAF undertakings, such as a successful 1994 effort to have the city of Baltimore hire only contractors who paid their employees a higher-than-minimum "living wage"--a cause later picked up by ACORN in other cities--aren't likely to appeal to free-market conservatives who believe that the net effect of such measures is to increase unemployment by eliminating low-wage entry level jobs. Still, the IAF's organizational emphasis on personal responsibility and commitment cannot help but resonate. "Alinsky never tried to organize the really poor; he never tried to organize welfare mothers, who are pretty hard to organize, as you might imagine; he always focused on people who had a little but wanted more," said Skerry, whose 1993 Mexican Americans, the Ambivalent Minority told the story of Cortes and COPS.
Since the allegations of voter-registration scams surfaced in the media in September, ACORN has taken pains to distract public attention from both itself (its website blames "the right wing noise machine" for its troubles) and its connections to Obama. The effort at distancing has undoubtedly been eased by the soft spot in the hearts of many journalists for any left-of-center organization that claims to promote "social change." Pablo Eisenberg of the Chronicle of Philanthropy covered the Rathke embezzlement and wrung his hands over the fact that ACORN's "impressive group of smart, dedicated, and hard-working change agents" had gone wrong.
Deidra Humphrey, 44, of East St. Louis, is expected to appear in U.S. District Court in St. Louis this week after a grand jury indicted her on the charges Dec. 31, according to the U.S. attorney's office. Humphrey is accused of submitting forged and false voter registration cards for the Nov. 8 general election — including forging cards for nursing home residents — U.S. Attorney Catherine Hanaway said Monday.
The question remains as to why Obama chose to forge close links with ACORN during the 1990s, when its rock-throwing style of community organizing had been a matter of public record for decades. After all, he could easily have returned to the lower-key, more centrist IAF. Not long before enrolling at Harvard Law School in 1988, Obama underwent IAF's standard eight-day training session for organizers. "I was very impressed by him," Chambers told me. "I told him that once he finished his schooling, to get back in touch with us. But he never did get back to us."
In a September 10 article in the New Republic, John Judis described what he called the "myth" that Obama had created about the centrality of community organizing to his political philosophy. Judis quoted a primary stump speech of Obama's declaring that community organizing was "the best education I ever had, better than anything I got at Harvard Law School" and implying that politics was for him simply community organizing by different means. The reality, noted Judis, after interviewing Obama's mentor during the mid-1980s--the Alinsky disciple Jerry Kellman--was that Obama had long before Harvard become disillusioned with the tedium and apparent pointlessness of trying to get toilets fixed in South Side housing projects when a career in politics that law school would make possible offered him charisma, power, and glory. Power, glory--and plenty of publicity--were also ACORN's goals and its forte.
It is not surprising that, as soon as the ink dried on Obama's Harvard degree, the future U.S. senator forgot all about Saul Alinsky and what he stood for in order to link himself to a charisma-craving group that, at least right now, seems to be giving community organizing a bad name. (Source: Obama WTF: Charlotte Allen.)
(SITE NOTE: The Progressives counter with "proof" that there has been no voter fraud. They say, "The Republicans have been talking a lot about voter fraud, but yet another study shows that it barely exists. Politico has a story in which a reporter pressed Ronald Michaelson, a veteran election administrator who is now working for the McCain campaign, to cite a single documented case of voter fraud that resulted from a phony registration and he could not come up with even one example. When asked, another McCain official, Ben Porritt, came up with 13 articles. However, 11 of these did not involve registration fraud at all and only one involved a noncitizen voting. While there is no doubt that low-paid workers for ACORN and other groups have turned in false registrations to ACORN (to earn a bit more), the organization itself selects out the clearly bogus ones and puts these in a separate envelope before turning them in (as required by law). This is how the bogus registrations get in the news. However, documented cases of bogus registrations actually leading to illegal voting are virtually nonexistent as the fraud being committed is the low-paid workers defrauding ACORN itself of a bit of money, not actual voting fraud." (Source: Electorate.vote.com (3 Nov 2008).)
However, under the guise of "consumer advocacy," ACORN has received money from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD funds hundreds, if not thousands, of left-wing "anti-poverty" groups across the country led by ACORN. Last October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001, despite the role most of these recipients play as activist satellites of the Democratic Party. The AARP scored nearly $400,000 for training; the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") scooped up more than $1.3 million; the National Urban League raked in nearly $1 million; and the ACORN Housing Corporation received more than $1.6 million.
As the Consumer Rights League points out in its new expose, the ACORN Housing Corporation has worked to obtain mortgages for illegal aliens in partnership with Citibank. It relies on undocumented income, "under the table" money, which may not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Moreover, the group's "financial justice" operations attack lenders for "exotic" loans, while recommending 10-year interest-only loans (which deny equity to the buyer) and risky reverse mortgages. Whistleblower documents reveal internal discussions among the group that blur the lines between its tax-exempt housing work and its aggressive electioneering activities. The group appears to shake down corporate interests with relentless PR attacks, and then enters "no lobby" agreements with targeted corporations after receiving payment.
Republicans have largely looked the other way as ACORN has expanded its government-funded empire. But finally, a few conservative voices in Congress have called for investigation of the group's apparent extortion schemes. This week, GOP Reps. Tom Feeney, Jeb Hensarling and Ed Royce called on Democrat Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, to convene a hearing to probe potential illegalities and abuse of taxpayer funds by ACORN's management and minions alike. (Source: Malkin.)
Michelle Obama's old law firm defends ACORN (Dec 2008) Michelle Obama's old law firm is representing ACORN's board in an internal embezzlement case that legal experts say could result in criminal charges.
During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama and his running-mate, Joe Biden, insisted they had nothing to do with ACORN after the inner-city advocacy group became engulfed in controversy over voter-registration fraud.
However, federal election records showed that the Obama campaign paid ACORN subsidiary Citizens Services Inc. $832,598 for get-out-the-vote activities, of which $80,000 went directly to ACORN. CSI and some 290 other ACORN subsidiaries operate out of the same building on Elysian Fields Avenue in New Orleans that serves as ACORN's national headquarters.
A sister organization sharing that New Orleans address – Citizens Consulting Inc. – is at the center of the embezzlement scandal, court records show.
Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN founder Wade Rathke, worked at CCI, where he kept the books for all of the ACORN-affiliated groups across the country. He is accused of embezzling almost $1 million in faulty credit card charges while working there. He allegedly spent some $40,000 a month on lavish travel and entertainment.
Wade Rathke and other officers of ACORN –a nonprofit organization that receives government as well as private foundation grant money – allegedly knew about the theft and tried to cover it up, court papers reveal. ACORN has raked in more than $126 million in donations and tax dollars since 1993.
But the scandal recently has cost ACORN financial support from major donors, including the Catholic Church, which has frozen donations until ACORN can assure the church it has cleaned up its operations. Other foundations have severed ties to ACORN.
Wade Rathke has stepped aside as chief organizer of the group's domestic operations, but critics note he remains aboard ACORN International Inc. as its president. The ACORN board last month abruptly fired members of an internal committee it set up to audit the books kept by Rathke's brother at CCI.
One of the fired auditors, Karen Inman, said the ACORN board's actions will lead to a criminal investigation. "Why would you want us not to clean up things?" she asked. "Why would you not want to do your own investigation instead of bringing in the sheriff?" She reckons the authorities will soon have to investigate ACORN. The group did not return phone calls. Loyola University law professor Dane Cioilino says ACORN officers who knew about the embezzlement may have violated their fiduciary responsibilities by failing to report what happened. It's also possible they may have committed the federal crime of "misprision" if they did anything to cover it up, she told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Worried about its legal exposure over the handling of the embezzlement, ACORN's board has retained Michelle Obama's old Chicago law firm, Sidley Austin LLP.
Sidley Austin was founded by liberal activist Howard Trienens. Michelle Obama worked there as an associate lawyer from 1988 to 1991, overlapping briefly with the tenure of 1960s terrorist and ex-convict Bernardine Dohrn, once considered by the FBI to be "the most dangerous woman in America." Dorhn, who was not licensed to practice law, got a job at the law firm thanks to her husband Bill Ayers' family connections to Trienens. The Obamas met at Sidley Austin when Barack interned there after his first year at Harvard Law School. After law school, Barack represented ACORN in a voter registration case.
Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center in Washington, a think tank that studies the politics of philanthropy, says the government should investigate ACORN under federal racketeering laws. He says the group has racked up more than $3 million in federal, state and local tax liens which appear to stem from its failure to pay employee payroll taxes. He says ACORN's financial operations are tightly controlled from the top and largely hidden from public view. "ACORN moves money around its networks with a boldness and agility that (Colombian druglord) Pablo Escobar would have admired," Vadum said.
Jim Terry of the Consumers Rights League agrees. "ACORN has a long and sordid history of employing convoluted Enron-style accounting to illegally use taxpayer funds for their own political gain," he said. The interlocking directorates of ACORN's 294 affiliates also concerns watchdog groups, who find it difficult to determine which funds are used for charity and which are used for political activities not allowed under ACORN's status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity.
Also, its board operations are not transparent. Meetings are seldom held, and those that are held have no minutes on file, observers say. At least one watchdog isn't waiting for the feds to act. The Ohio-based Buckeye Institute has filed a civil action under state racketeering laws, arguing ACORN has engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounts to organized crime. President-elect Obama helped train ACORN leaders as a community organizer in Chicago. He also was once employed by ACORN affiliate Project Vote. Last year, he promised a meeting of community organizers that he would meet with ACORN and other organizers after winning on Election Day. "Before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda," Obama said. "We're going to be having meetings all across the country with community organizations," he added, "so that you have input into the agenda for the next presidency of the United States of America. (Source: World Net Daily.)
ACORN Members Demand Federal Criminal Probe: Capital Research Center (January 12, 2009: Matthew Vadum) Dissident ACORN members are demanding that the crooked group be investigated with a view to federal criminal charges, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports.
The splinter group, ACORN 8, released a 24-page document Wednesday that asks federal investigators to consider fraud, embezzlement and conspiracy charges, and criminal civil rights violations relating to the embezzlement of nearly $1 million from the nonprofit's accounts and an alleged cover-up of the theft for almost a decade.
"Moreover, due to the admission that a felony has been committed, other federal offenses may have also been committed ... ," states the document signed by 14 members of ACORN 8, including recently expelled members of ACORN's national board of directors.
The embezzlement and accusations of voter registration fraud in at least eight states, including Pennsylvania, have cost ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- the support of a benefactor that gave the activist group $7 million in the past decade.
The ACORN 8 complaint alleges violation of the civil rights of board members who sought to investigate the embezzlement and subsequently were removed from the board.
The action stems from a bitter dispute within ACORN since disclosure in June that Dale Rathke, brother of ACORN co-founder and former Chief Organizer Wade Rathke, embezzled $948,000.
ACORN officials last year announced a settlement agreement to recoup the money. No criminal charges resulted. [...]
In November I (Vadum) wrote in the Washington Times about the growing demands for ACORN to be criminally probed.
Electoral Fraud
By definition in Wikipedia, electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud tend to involve affecting vote counts to bring about a desired election outcome, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Exactly what constitutes electoral fraud under law varies from country to country; methods which are illegal in one country may not be in another. Many kinds of voter fraud are outlawed in specific electoral legislation, but others are in violation of more general laws such as those banning assault, harrassment or libel. Although technically the term 'electoral fraud' covers only those acts which are specifically illegal, the term is sometimes used to describe acts which, although legal, are considered to be morally unacceptable, outside the spirit of electoral laws or in violation of the principles of democracy.
Especially with national elections, successful electoral fraud can have the effect of a coup d'état or corruption of democracy. Harsh penalties aimed at deterring electoral fraud make it likely that any individuals who perpetrate acts of fraud do so with the expectation that it either will not be discovered or will be excused after the fact.
Techniques: Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic process, but most commonly occurs during election campaigns or during vote-counting. The two main types of electoral fraud are (1) preventing eligible voters from casting their vote freely (or voting at all); and (2) altering the results.
Intimidation: Voter intimidation involves putting undue pressure on a voter or group of voters so that they will vote a particular way, or not at all. Absentee and other remote voting can be more open to some forms of intimidation as the voter does not have the protection and privacy of the polling location. Intimidation can take a range of forms. (NOTE: The dust-up over the ads was quickly obscured, however, when farm-worker heroine Dolores Huerta accused the Obama camp of intimidating voters. ... Asked whether any of the alleged dirty tricks were linked in any way to the Obama campaign, Rodriguez said, “These are people who have endorsed him and who are organizing workers to come vote for him. I would say there is some kind of connection there.” The Clinton campaign put Rolling Stone in touch with two casino kitchen workers who claim to have either experienced or witnessed union intimidation to vote for Obama. While their stories make clear that the union — which endorsed Obama last week — has aggressively encouraged its members to close ranks behind Obama, their experiences are far less black-and-white than the charges levied by Huerta. In neither case was any worker threatened with termination. ... Phil Singer, national spokesman for the Clinton campaign said the campaign stands by Huerta: “We’ve been getting a lot of calls [from people being told] your job is on the line unless you sign a supporter card for Senator Obama, or you can’t take off work unless you support Senator Obama.”
(Source: Rolling Stone.)
Violence or the threat of violence: In its simplist form, voters from a particular demographic or known to support a particular party or candidate are directly threatened by supporters of another party or candidate or those hired by them. In other cases supporters of a particular party make it known that if a particular village or neighbourhood is found to have the 'wrong' way, reprisals will be made against that community. Another method is to make a general threat of violence, for example a bomb threat which has the effect of closing a particular polling place, thus making it difficult for people in that area to vote. There were isolated incidents.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: On national TV, two Black Panthers in Philadelphia appeared at a polling place and positioned themselves in front of the doors with a billy club. The motivation was obviously intimidation and the police was called. CNN set up a national hotline to call in with troubles encountered and promised to rush crews to any site with problems. There were only isolated problems nationwide. (Panthers with club and YouTube: National TV.)
Black Panther outside Polling Place (4 Nov 2008)
UPDATE: 29 May 2009 Last week, I called the Justice Department to inquire about an unusual decision they made to dismiss default judgements in a voter intimidation lawsuit the government filed under the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party.
You remember the case of the menacing NBPP thugs who threatened voters at a Philly precinct. I blogged about it many times since the fall.
The Bush DOJ filed suit against Malik Shabazz and two of the local NBPP radicals who were on site — one with a billy club. None of them filed an answer to the lawsuit, putting them all into default. I am told this is the easiest way to win a lawsuit. But instead of taking the default judgment that DOJ is entitled to against all of the defendants, the department last week dismissed the lawsuit against two out of the three defendants. As Election Journal (which broke the story with exclusive video of the intimidation) notes, one of the individual defendants who was dismissed, Jerry Jackson, “is an elected member of the Philadelphia Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher.” According to a legal source familiar with DOJ procedures, dismissing a lawsuit won by default is unheard of. I contacted one of the DOJ lawyers, Spencer Fisher, who signed his name to the voluntary dismissal order. He referred me to Public Affairs. Spokesman Alejandro Miyar told me that the DOJ dropped the cases against Jackson nutball Malik Shabazz “after careful review.” I asked what new evidence caused the Obama DOJ to make such an unprecedented move. He said he “wasn’t a lawyer” and would try and find out. Good luck with that.
Meantime, the DOJ is apparently bracing for closer scrutiny of the case. Miyar said he was preparing to release a statement to “national media outlets.” Watch how they spin. (Source: Michelle Milken.)
UPDATE: 11 Aug 2009 EDITORIAL: Black Panther case expands
Civil Rights Commission steps up an inquiry
Even if the liberal media continue to ignore it, the Justice Department's dismissal of a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party is a full-blown scandal. Fortunately, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is pursuing justice even though the Department of Justice is not.
As reported in our news pages last Friday, the commission has sent a strongly worded letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., effectively threatening to subpoena witnesses and documents if Justice does not provide better, more complete answers about its decision to dismiss the cases. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," wrote the commission, "and raises other serious questions about the department's law enforcement decisions."
The case involves a nationally broadcast incident in which two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb, one of them wielding a nightstick, stood outside a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day in November. They were uttering racial epithets and otherwise discouraging voting. Career attorneys at the Justice Department won a default judgment against both Black Panthers, plus a national Panther leader and the party as a whole -- but at the last minute, Obama appointees at Justice dismissed all the charges except one, and responded to that one with an extraordinarily mild injunction.
One explanation from Justice was that First Amendment (free speech) rights somehow mitigated against greater punishment of the Black Panthers. The commission responded, sensibly: "It is unclear what First Amendment issue would arise by enjoining the [New Black Panther Party] or other racial hate-groups from organizing its members again to carry any weapons (especially when dressed in paramilitary uniforms) at polling places and subject particular voters to racially-bigoted diatribes as they attempt to enter the polls."
The commission also "noted the peculiar logic of the department's court filing that the defendants' failure to respond was the reason for its dismissal of the case against three defendants: Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers -- that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."
It really is a strange notion of justice to say that refusal to contest one's guilt is reason to treat someone as innocent. The Commission on Civil Rights is correct to challenge it.
The commission also ought to continue asking if outside groups played an improper role in the case's dismissal, or if there was untoward political interference from the White House or other Democratic Party sources.
But the commission may not stop even there. Letters can be ignored. Yearlong investigations can't be. At last Friday's meeting, Commissioner Todd Gaziano noted that the commission statutorily is required to issue an annual report on some aspect of federal civil rights enforcement. He proposed that the report for 2010 focus on the Justice Department's handling of the Black Panther case. While the commission did not make a final decision on the matter, Mr. Gaziano's proposal seemed to enjoy tentative majority support.
"The implications of the department's actions in this case are potentially quite negative," Mr. Gaziano told The Washington Times. "For this reason, the commission has a responsibility to investigate and report to Congress exactly what those implications are."
We look forward to what the commission discovers about Justice constraining civil rights. (Source: Washington Times.)
UPDATE: 30 Sep 2009 Civil Rights Commission Chairman Wants Answers from Holder The Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, Gerald A. Reynolds, has sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking answers to their questions about a voter intimidation case in Philadelphia involving the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). It considers the responses “overdue.” The letter, dated September 30, 2009, is seemingly an unprecedented action. It asks for Mr. Holder to “instruct Department officials to fully cooperate” with the Commission’s investigation as required by federal law. The correspondence noted that the Commission still has not received any of the documents they requested in their initial June inquiries. It has questions surrounding the “unusual decision” by DOJ to dismiss the case against two of the three defendants and the equally unusual injunction obtained against the third defendant.
Mr. Reynolds says this information is needed because the Commission is responsible to investigate voting rights deprivations and evaluate federal enforcement of federal voting rights laws. They want to form an independent opinion about DOJ’s enforcement actions and the potential impact on future voter intimidation enforcement. It may also try “to determine whether any decisions in the case were induced or affected by improper influences.”
The communication reminded Mr. Holder that Congress mandates that, “All Federal agencies shall fully cooperate with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.” It wants Mr. Holder to identify the person responsible for complying with the requests. The Commission voted, September 11, 2009, to make its review of the implications of the NBPP matter the subject of its annual enforcement report this incident part of their annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. The letter concludes by cautioning Mr. Holder that if he does not respond by October 14, they will contact the DOJ personnel involved directly. (Source: Tremoglie tea time.)
Attacks on polling places: Polling places in an area known to support a particular party or candidate may be targeted for vandalism, destruction or threats, thus making it difficult or impossible for people in that area to vote. (NOTE: There were fears that this might occur and both candidates campaigns sent out volunteer monitors to the polls to observe. In some areas, police cars circled the polling places for fear of a racial backlash -- and some considered the police as intimidation. No violence dealing with polling was noted.)
Legal threats: In this case voters will be made to believe, accurately or otherwise, that they are not legally entitled to vote, or that they are legally obliged to vote a particular way. Voters who are not confident about their entitlement to vote may also be intimidated by real or implied authority figures who suggest that those who vote when they are not entitled to will be imprisoned, deported or otherwise punished. (NOTE: Legions of lawyers from the Obama campaign were dispatched to all 50 states to monitor the elections. The McCain campaign also sent lawyers to key states. No abuses were noted.)
New Mexico. Two families reported visits by a private investigator inquiring about relatives that the state Republican Party alleges voted fraudulently in the June primary. The private investigator requested identification for relatives in question as proof of their eligibility, potentially in violation of federal law. The Bernalillo County Clerk confirmed both individuals' legitimate registrations. On October 27, 2008, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop further intimidation.
Greene County, Ohio. A law enforcement officer in Greene County, Ohio sought the names of 300 voters who registered and voted at the beginning of Ohio's early voting period in a town made up largely of students. The effort, which was later withdrawn, was criticized as an effort to intimidate student voters and deter others from voting.
Hamilton County, Ohio. In a move that could intimidate and deter voters, Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters recently requested, via subpoena, personal information for 40% of the voters who registered and immediately cast a ballot during the weeklong period in which Ohio allows same-day registration and voting.
Baltimore City, Maryland. In Maryland, people with felony convictions can register to vote when they have completed the terms of their sentence, including probation and parole. The Baltimore city elections board sent letters to 422 people with felony convictions who registered to vote asking them to verify that they had completed their sentence, but the letter did not provide any information on what proof these voters must provide, who to contact, or a deadline for response. Although the state Attorney General has said it would attempt to contact these individuals, it is unclear if they will be added to the rolls for the November election.
Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Attorney General announced that he will deploy more than 50 assistant attorney generals and state agents on Election Day to polling places around the state to guard against voter fraud. This is expected to intimidate voters.
Vote buying: Voters may be given money or other rewards for voting in a particular way, or not voting. This may also be done indirectly, for example by paying clergymen to tell their parishioners to vote for a particular party or candidate. (NOTE: There were allegations that "gift cards" -- monetary cards which are untraceable -- were given out during ACORN voter registrations. This was suggested as a way to explain Obama's massive small contribution outpouring. These allegations were never substantiated.)
Misinformation: In some elections parties or candidates, or their supporters, may distribute false or misleading information in order to affect the outcome of the election. Most commonly, smear campaigns (the circulation of false rumours) are made against a particular candidate or party. Smear campaigns are not necessarily illegal and can therefore not always be considered election fraud. Another way in which misinformation can be used in voter fraud is to give voters incorrect information about the time or place of polling, thus causing them to miss their chance to vote.
Virginia. A phony State Board of Elections flier was posted around the Hampton Roads area, stating that Republicans vote on Tuesday, November 4th, and Democrats vote on Wednesday, November 5th. The Virginia State Police determined that flier was an "office joke" and not intended to deceive voters.
Philadelphia fliers. Deceptive fliers about the consequences of voting were distributed in a predominantly African American neighborhood in Philadelphia.
California. Dozens of voters reported that a firm hired by the California Republican Party tricked them into registering with the GOP when signing a petition they believed to toughen penalties against child molesters. The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder is reviewing 9,000 registration affidavits submitted by the firm to determine if any of the party affiliation changes were involuntary.
Travis County, Texas. County officials are looking for a man who may be providing misleading information regarding the state's straight-party voting option, telling voters that in addition to a straight-party vote, they must also select the name of the candidate they would like vote for president. In actuality, doing this would de-select the mark automatically made by the straight-party vote.
Madison County, North Carolina. Residents have complained of misleading calls that provide inaccurate information regarding absentee ballot deadlines. The State Board of Elections is investigating.
Kern County, California. A radio host announced that Republicans are being urged to vote on November 4 and Democrats on November 5. Although the host has said he meant it as a joke, the county elections chief has asked the radio station to stop providing misleading information.
Texas. In early October, an email widely circulated falsely warned voters that a straight-party vote would not register a vote for president. In fact, if a voter using Texas ballots separately records a vote for president after voting straight-party, the vote for president will be deselected and will not count.
Florida. The St. Petersburg Times reported that the Republican National Committee sent non-forwardable mailings to older Democratic voters, falsely stating that recipients are registered as Republicans and suggested that undeliverable mailings could be used to compile challenge lists. The RNC claimed that the controversial mailing was just a fundraising piece.
Minnesota. The non-profit group Minnesota Majority, pretending to be from the Secretary of State's office, made calls to voters questioning their registrations in a supposed attempt to uncover voting irregularities.
Political smear campaigns can also double as diversionary tactics. An example from the 2008 U.S. Presidential election campaigns are Republican Party accusations of voter registration fraud aimed at community-based organizations, such as ACORN. Known for targeting their voter registration drives primarily in lower-income communities, ACORN has acknowledged problems with some new voter registrations they have collected, citing issues they claim are common among major voter registration drives regardless of political affinity or party affiliation.
Other aspects of Voter fraud:
Physical tampering: Ballot stuffing, also called "ghost voting." Theft or destruction of ballot boxes. Destroying election material in order to annul results for individual polling stations or even whole constituencies. (NOTE: Because of the Florida voter recount in the 2000 National Election that required the Supreme Court intervention, there was a election, creating a confusing layout for the ballot, one that could potentially mislead and disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Mississippi voters in that race, particularly low-income and minority voters.
Twelve Ohio counties. Twelve Ohio counties released sample paper ballots that split the presidential contest over two columns for this November's election. As the Brennan Center's study found, this particular layout often confuses voters and causes them to double-vote, an action which ultimately results in an uncounted ballot. On September 17, 2008, the Brennan Center sent a letter to the board of elections in all Ohio counties, urging them to reconsider their ballot layout and place the presidential contest in a single column on the paper ballot. The Ohio Secretary of State forwarded the letter to all county board of elections as well.
North Carolina straight-party voting. As a result of a ballot design problem in North Carolina, votes for president may have already been lost in the early voting period. The ballot is designed, counter-intuitively, so that a straight-party vote does not include a vote for president; voters must separately mark their presidential contest choice. In previous federal elections, between 2.5% and 3.2% of ballots in North Carolina did not include a vote for president. A Brennan Center study found that if more than 1% of voters fail to cast a vote for president, it is typically an indication of a ballot design flaw or other problem.
Inflation or deflation of voters lists: Registering false voters such as the deceased or even fictitious persons. Subverting voter registration rules, such as with "fagot voters." (persons who had land assigned to them prior to an election and removed immediately after an election to meet requirements to vote), through "colonization" (the process of transporting groups of men from other cities and lodging them in flophouses).
Minnesota: Members of a conservative advocacy group claim they’ve uncovered thousands of votes that were registered in deceased people’s names and say the Secretary of State left them on the voting rolls. Dan McGrath with the group Minnesota Majority is critical of the Secretary of State's office for not removing dead voters from the rolls. The group plans to announce on 3 Jun 2009 that 2,812 dead people may be listed as having voted—either by error or fraud. (Source: KSP-TV.)
Allegation of ACORN registering people who were officially dead -- or even fictional cartoon characters. These allegations have been substantiated but the cause has been attributed to the people collecting the voter registration and not ACORN itself. However, the extent of the fraud was not investigated by authorities. ACORN has helped register over 1.27 million people nationwide. It gets 40 percent of its revenues from the taxpayers, with the rest coming from left-wing heavyweights like billionaire George Soros and the Democracy Alliance. The group's vandalism on electoral integrity is systemic. ACORN has been implicated in similar voter fraud schemes in Missouri, Ohio and at least 12 other states. (Source: Townhall: Malkin and NY Post: Malkin.)
In March 2008, Philadelphia elections officials accused the nonprofit advocacy group of filing fraudulent voter registrations in advance of the April 22nd Pennsylvania primary. The charges have been forwarded to the city district attorney's office.
The Wall Street Journal noted: "In Ohio in 2004, a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey. During a congressional hearing in Ohio in the aftermath of the 2004 election, officials from several counties in the state explained ACORN's practice of dumping thousands of registration forms in their lap on the submission deadline, even though the forms had been collected months earlier."
In July 2007, ACORN settled the largest case of voter fraud in the history of Washington State. Seven ACORN workers had submitted nearly 2,000 bogus voter registration forms. According to case records, they flipped through phone books for names to use on the forms, including "Leon Spinks," "Frekkie Magoal" and "Fruto Boy Crispila." Three ACORN election hoaxers pleaded guilty in October 2007. A King County prosecutor called ACORN's criminal sabotage "an act of vandalism upon the voter rolls."
In Oct 2008, Nevada officials raided ACORN's Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names. Among the bogus monikers: names of former Dallas Cowboys players.
In Oct 2008, Lake County, Ind., election officials this month rejected thousands of registration forms ACORN had turned in from its drives this summer. On a conference call yesterday, GOP officials noted that up to 11,000 of the applications were no good - tying up election officials and jeopardizing the voting rights of untold victims whose identities may have been stolen. In what seems to be ACORN's standard operating procedure, vote canvassers had pulled names and addresses from phone books and forged signatures. According to a local paper (the Northwest Indiana and Illionois Times), "Large numbers of voter registration forms bore signatures all in the same apparent handwriting style" and "apparently the organization's canvassers broke rules to meet ACORN-set voter registration quotas to get paid." The fake registrants include dead people and underage kids.
In Sep 2008, Milwaukee, Wisc., officials discovered at least seven felons employed as voter-registration workers for ACORN and another affiliated group. (State law bans felons from such work.) They also uncovered a raft of problematic voter-registration cards. The state GOP accuses the group of trying to get dead, imprisoned or imaginary people on the voter rolls. Fraud has plagued ACORN's Milwaukee chapter since the last election cycle.
In Florida, in Orange County alone, ACORN workers turned in multiple, copycat forms for six separate voters over the summer. The Miami Herald reports: "One individual had 21 duplicate applications." Election officials had flagged ACORN's negligent practices months ago. But it may be too late: In Orange, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, ACORN has signed up 135,000 new voters, nearly 60 percent of them registered as Democrats - a fifth of all new voters in that region.
In Ohio, large numbers of homeless people got free van and bus rides to register. Shelby Holliday, a reporter for Palestra.net, filmed ACORN shuttling in some prospects. She told me she spoke with one homeless woman who said ACORN "told her who to vote for if she wanted a 'better life,' and told her not to worry about jury duty (one of the reasons this homeless woman didn't want to register) because the government probably wouldn't be able to track her down. She was registering with a temporary address." Holliday interviewed another homeless man targeted by the registration drive who exulted that he was voting for Obama because "I want him to do his thang. You know, do his thug thizzle." "Thug thizzle" is street slang for performing your trademark move.
Voter Purges: Another element of this is the voter purges. This would dump people from the voting rolls -- without their knowledge -- and when they show up to vote find themselves ineligible. Prior to the election, both Republicans and Democrats challenged the practice in many states. For a more complete breakdown of voter purges, voter suppression and voter challenges, see Brennan Center: Voter Suppression Incidents.) The Department of Justice's Voting Section is pressuring 10 states to purge voter rolls before the 2008 election based on statistics that former Voting Section attorneys and other experts say are flawed and do not confirm that those states have more voter registrations than eligible voters, as the department alleges. Voting Section Chief John Tanner called for the purges in letters sent this spring under an arcane provision in the National Voter Registration Act, better known as the Motor Voter law, whose purpose is to expand voter registration. The identical letters notify states that 10 percent or more of their election jurisdictions have problematic voter rolls. It tells states to report "the subsequent removal from rolls of persons no longer eligible to vote." The 10 states receiving Voting Section purge letters are Iowa, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Vermont. Since 2005, the Section has also sued six other states or cities—Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, Philadelphia and Pulaski County, Arkansas—where purging voter rolls was part of the resulting settlement. Only Missouri fought a Voting Section suit, winning in federal court, although that decision has been appealed. (Source: IEFD.org.) The New York Times based its findings on reviews of state records and Social Security data, and said it had identified apparent problems in Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Nevada and North Carolina. The Times said voters appear to have been purged by mistake and not because of any intentional violations by election officials or coordinated efforts by any party. It says that some states are improperly using Social Security data to verify new voters' registration applications, and that others might have broken rules that govern removing voters from the rolls within 90 days of a federal election. (Source: WCCO.)
Colorado -- In response to a New York Times article, the Colorado Secretary of State admitted that at least 2,454 voters were purged illegally within 90 days of a federal election. Several thousand additional records were purged as potential "duplicates" within 90 days of the election, also in violation of federal law. Another several thousand were illegally purged based on non-forwardable mailings to newly registered voters. Voting rights groups filed a lawsuit in federal court on October 24, 2008, alleging that the Colorado Secretary of State's recent purges violate federal law. On October 30, 2008, the parties entered into a court-approved agreement ensuring that the ballots of any wrongfully purged voter will be counted. The following day, after the Secretary of State told reporters that he was continuing to purge the voter rolls, Judge Kane ordered him to cease all efforts to remove names from the voter rolls before the election. The lawsuit was brought by Common Cause of Colorado, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, and the Service Employees International Union. The groups allege that Colorado has removed more than 20,000 voters from registration lists in the 90-day period before Election Day. A federal law, the National Voting Rights Act, generally prohibits removals in this 90-day window, except in the event of death, incapacitation, a felony conviction, or if the voter asks to be removed. After lawyers made their arguments yesterday in federal court in the lawsuit challenging the purging of tens of thousands of Colorado voters from voter registration lists, U.S. Senior District Court Judge John L. Kane, Jr. declared he would take the matter under advisement. Shortly before he returned to rule, the parties reached a settlement. The result is that those who who were purged will be able to vote and their credentials will be checked afterwards. If they are eligible to vote, their vote will count. Under the agreement, voters removed from the rolls will be permitted to cast provisional ballots, and those ballots will be counted unless election officials can prove the voters were not eligible. To strike such ballots, county election officials must conduct an extensive records review on each one, a decision that must then be reviewed by Mr. Coffman's office.
Georgia -- (a) Naturalized citizens -- Georgia recently began using an unreliable matching process to purge the voter rolls of alleged non-citizens. The process they use misses naturalized citizens because it only checks the citizenship documents used to obtain driver's licenses, no matter how long ago, and those records are not updated when legal residents become naturalized. According to a State attorney, 4,538 voters, 3,821 of them newly registered, have been flagged as non-citizens. A federal court refused to block this practice in a recent lawsuit filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The United States has also intervened and said that the practice should have been pre-cleared. On October 27, 2008, a three-judge panel ruled that the State must allow voters whose names were flagged because of an attempted purge of alleged non-citizens to cast a ballot on Election Day. (b) Muscogee County, Georgia. Earlier this year, a county election administrator in Muscogee County, Georgia purged 700 people who were supposedly ineligible because of criminal convictions. The purge was highly inaccurate and included people who never received even a parking ticket.
Indiana -- In April 2008 when Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita announced the release of "record high" voter registration rolls, with 4.3 million voters set to vote in the Tuesday May 6 primary, he didn't mention that a whopping 1,134,427 voter registrations have been cancelled. For whatever reason, these two counties had ... what ... massive data entry problems? Exceptionally messy records? Lots of dead people who climbed back into their graves? Or will we see a lot of disappointed voters on Tuesday, when they perhaps learn that they were among the lucky million people who got purged? (Source: Black Box Voting.)
Louisiana -- Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne deleted nearly 20,000 former Louisiana residents from voter rolls Aug. 15 after finding they had registered to vote in other states. The former residents were all dropped for the same reason -- dual registration, said secretary of state spokesman Jacques Berry.
Michigan -- Michigan illegally purged its voter rolls this year within 90 days of an election and using non-forwardable mailings to recently registered voters, according to a recent federal court ruling. The court ordered the restoration of about 1,400 voters who had been removed because their voter identification cards were returned as undelivered. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit against Michigan electoral officials over what the organization characterizes as two "statewide voter purge programs" that it claims would "disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Michigan voters"—many of them college students—in advance of the fall presidential election. The legal action comes two days after Democratic nominee Barack Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit against Michigan over another voter-exclusion practice—using home foreclosure lists to challenge a person's right to vote.
The ACLU suit, which targets Michigan's Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, a Republican, as well as the state's elections director and the city of Ypsilanti's clerk, charges that two practices by the state are illegal: one in which the state immediately cancels the voter registrations for individuals who obtain a driver's license in another state, and one in which local clerks nullify new voter registration applications if mailed voter cards are returned by the post office as undeliverable.
Madison County, Mississippi. -- About a week before the Mississippi primary, an election administrator in Madison County, Mississippi improperly purged approximately 10,000 voters, reportedly from her home computer. Reportedly, the purge was detected when it was discovered that a local candidate was removed from the voter rolls. By all accounts, the Secretary of State's staff successfully reinstated the erroneously purged voters in time for the primary.
Nevada -- The NY Times story was claimed to be misleading. Matt Griffin, elections deputy for the Secretary of State's office, explained that people sometimes make mistakes filling out their registration forms such as writing their social security number in the driver's license field which can require accessing the Social Security Administration database for comparison and causes their file to be flagged. Even so, he told the Nevada Appeal, "all you've got to do is show an ID and you can still vote."
Ohio -- Voting by absentee ballot does not necessarily mean your vote will be counted. “Unfortunately, absentee ballots do not, in themselves, ensure the counting of those votes,” Miller said. “Such ballots are, moreover, often counted last--sometimes after the fact--or not at all. Their fate depends entirely on the probity of the officials running the election; and in Ohio many of those people are less interested in fair elections than in helping out the GOP. “Two years ago, the partisan election boards in 55 of Ohio's 88 counties actually destroyed all or part of their stored ballots from the prior presidential race, notwithstanding a court order that those documents all be preserved. They clearly did so as a way to shred the evidence of vast election fraud in the 2004 election." Boehner and other GOP lawmakers and party officials said voters with questionable voter registration forms should cast provisional ballots, which are often thrown out after the voter leaves the polling place. The Ohio Republican Party filed a lawsuit last month against Brunner, a Democrat, but the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case. The justices said lawsuits “brought by a private litigant" could not be used to force states to abide by federal laws. Last week, The Public Record reported that Congressman John Boehner, R-Ohio, asked President George W. Bush to intervene in the matter and order the Department of Justice to force Brunner to adhere to a provision in the 2002 federal law known as the Help America Vote Act to verify the eligibility of voters. “Unless action is taken by the [Justice] Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of names whose information has not been verified through the [Help America Vote Act] procedures mandated by Congress will remain on the voter rolls during the Nov. 4 election. Last week, The Public Record reported that Congressman John Boehner, R-Ohio, asked President George W. Bush to intervene in the matter and order the Department of Justice to force Brunner to adhere to a provision in the 2002 federal law known as the Help America Vote Act to verify the eligibility of voters. “Unless action is taken by the [Justice] Department immediately, thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of names whose information has not been verified through the [Help America Vote Act] procedures mandated by Congress will remain on the voter rolls during the Nov. 4 election. …
Wisconsin -- After the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (the state's election board) rejected a proposal in July to retroactively implement a no "match, no vote" policy for all voters who registered since 2006, on September 10, the Attorney General sued the board seeking to force such a policy right before the election. The Board conducted an audit of its voter rolls and found a 22% match failure rate, including for 4 of the 6 members of the board. On October 23, 2008, the court dismissed the Attorney General's lawsuit, after concluding he lacked standing to bring the case; HAVA did not require the Government Accountability Board to link voters' eligibility to a successful match; and that doing so would violate the materiality provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Social engineering: People pretending to help elderly or blind persons with their vote. Electorate, precinct or party workers may cast a vote instead of the person whose vote it is, on the pretence of helping them to vote. Elderly and disabled people, as well as those who are not fluent in the language on the ballot paper, are particularly vulnerable to this. (NOTE: The McCain campaign made allegations that ACORN registered voters with dementia. This allegation was not proven.)
By voters: Impersonating a voter. (NOTE: There are no stats on this. Either the person succeeded in voting or was turned away at the polls.)
During tabulation in the polling place: Bribery, corruption or threatening of election officials. Tampering with tabulation software (applicable only to computer assisted tabulation). Spoiling votes: for example, by marking more candidates than allowed. Double marking. A corrupt election official will conceal a piece of pencil lead underneath his fingernail, in which he covertly marks an unvoted box in an area where the maximum number of votes has already been cast. Since this ballot is then considered overvoted, it is discarded, effectively throwing out the voter's vote. (NOTE: In the recount process, in some states, double marking occurred. Whether to count the ballots has been taken to court in elections where the races were close.)
(Source: Wikipedia and Voter Suppression Incidents.)
Lawyers: ACORN Destroying American Elections (Feb 2009) Activist group ACORN is subverting America's election system by using fraud and corruption to mislead poor, minority communities, and the media is complicit in the effort, an organization of Republican lawyers claims. “[ACORN’s] antics include embezzlement, cover-ups, document destruction, misuse of taxpayer funds for political purposes, voter fraud, campaign finance violations, and non-profits abuse,” said Heather Heidelbaugh, a Pittsburgh attorney and vice president of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).
“Most of us think ACORN is all about trying to conduct massive voter register drives, but that’s just a ruse,” Heidelbaugh said as part of a panel discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday. “What ACORN is trying to do is change the very core of what America is. And they’re using poor people and people of color to do it.”
The group discussed ACORN’s track record of election fraud, which is concerning considering the group is the largest grass roots organization in America with 170 affiliated organizations. Despite a series of complaints of voter registration fraud by ACORN representatives, however, the mainstream media is reluctant to report on the group’s transgressions, RNLA officials say.
Heidelbaugh, who in October of 2008 tried a preliminary case on behalf of the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee alleging voter fraud, misrepresentation, violation of the equal protection code and due process by ACORN, claims the New York Times refused to go with a story brought to the court about a woman who testified in court about Barack Obama’s link to ACORN. “If somebody testifies in court, under oath, and tells the truth and has evidence, certainly then the truth will come out,” Heidelbaugh surmised. She then brought the court transcript to the CNN investigative reporter covering the court case. “I was interviewed by a CNN reporter with a camera at the trial. It [the story] never got out,” Heidelbaugh said. “I was later told, ‘We’re not going with this story; it’s a game-changer.’ ABC World News tonight? Same story. This is the failure of our democracy. This is the failure of the mass media to enforce our First Amendment.” Heidelbaugh said the Obama campaign provided a spreadsheet listing its maxed-out donors to ACORN to raise funds, which was admitted into evidence and was released to every media outlet in Pennsylvania, the Associated Press, and CNN.
“After two days of working with the news outlets, the investigative reporter for CNN said, ‘We’re shutting the story down,’ simply because the Obama campaign called the court house and said, ‘We did not provide that.’ So they killed the story.”
Heidelbaugh said ACORN’s massive voter registration drives are not to register voters, “It’s to tell their liberal funding sources they will register 1.5 million voters, and each of these massive foundations and support units will then send in massive amounts of money which go unaccounted for and are completely untraceable. It’s a complete subterfuge to get money into the organization. They don’t care whether people are registered or not; they want the numbers for their funders,” Heidelbaugh said. “There might be one thing worse than having Al Franken in the Senate,” Heidelbaugh quipped, “and that’s ACORN conducting the census."
Hans von Spakovsky, a visiting legal scholar at The Heritage Foundation, pointed out the United States’ long history of voter fraud. “There [have] been so many examples of voter fraud documented throughout this nation’s history that it demonstrates not only that voter fraud is real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election,” von Spakovsky said. “But liberals constantly deny that voter fraud exists. When prosecutions are started, they try everything they can to stop them. They also stop states from taking any steps through legislation or regulation that will prevent it.”
Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council, who also is a leading conservative and former Ohio Secretary of State, also warned of the dangers of the White House taking over the census. Blackwell says the Obama administration is simply exercising the basic rules of political power, which are, “Get it; use it; keep it; expand it." (Source: Newsmax.)
Congress panel testimony to accuse ACORN of mob tactics (Mar 2009) A lawyer for a whistleblower on the activist group ACORN is prepared to tell a House panel Thursday that the group provided liberal causes with protest-for-hire services and coerced donations from the targets of demonstrations through a mob-style "protection" racket. ACORN called it the "muscle for the money" program, according to prepared testimony Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh plans to deliver at a hearing of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties.
The protest shakedowns are among a slew of accusations that Ms. Heidelbaugh intends to make against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. She also will accuse the nonprofit group of violating tax, campaign-finance and other laws by sharing a list of President Obama's maxed-out campaign donors to solicit more funds for a get-out-the-vote drive. The accusations, which are based entirely on sworn court testimony late last year by ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief, range from unlawfully coordinating campaign activity with Mr. Obama's presidential campaign to deliberately engaging in voter-registration fraud and misusing federal grant money.
ACORN officials say none of the charges is true, though they declined to respond to any of the separate claims. "None of this wild and varied list of charges has any credibility, and we're not going to spend our time on it," said Kevin Whelan, ACORN deputy political director. He said the group's voter-registration drive succeeded in bringing many disaffected minority and low-income voters into the democratic process.
Ms. Heidelbaugh, a member of the executive committee of the Republican National Lawyers Association, spearheaded an unsuccessful lawsuit last year seeking a court injunction in Pennsylvania against ACORN's voter-registration drive for the 2008 presidential campaign. Republican members of the committee invited her to appear as a witness.
Ms. Moncrief, who worked for years as a clerk at the ACORN office in the District before being fired for charging about $2,000 in personal expenses on an ACORN credit card, is not scheduled to testify. Ms. Heidelbaugh said the whistleblower will be present as a guest at the hearing. ACORN's Mr. Whelan said Ms. Moncrief was never a part of the organization's management and was fired for stealing. "Nothing she says has any credibility," he said. Ms. Heidelbaugh called Ms. Moncrief a "courageous woman" who has withstood threats of violence to shed light on what goes on at ACORN.
The prepared testimony described two facets of the "muscle for the money" program, an official and unofficial program.
The "official" program is the name of the ACORN voter-registration drives. The Obama campaign paid an ACORN affiliate group more than $800,000 for these get-out-the-vote services during the primary race, though the expenditure was initially misrepresented to the Federal Election Commission as for "sound and lighting equipment," but later corrected. The "unofficial" program collected payments to organize protests. For example, the Service Employees International Union hired ACORN to harass the Carlyle Group, a global private equity firm. Other paid protests targeted Sherwin-Williams, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt and Money Mart, according to the testimony.
The protests then became a way to extract corporate donations. "The protesting was used to get companies to negotiate. The companies would pay money to get the protesting to stop," Ms. Heidelbaugh said, quoting Ms. Moncrief's court testimony. "In addition to calling this activity 'Muscle for the Money,' the insiders at ACORN called it 'protection.' "
The hearing likely will rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between Mr. Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote. The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into suspected voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada. (Source: Washington Times.)
Former ACORN Employee: More Than Half Voter Registrations Invalid (Mar 2009) More than half the voter registrations turned in by ACORN canvassers during the last election were not valid, according to testimony to be presented before a House Judiciary subcommittee. The testimony is from Anita MonCrief, a former employee of an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations. MonCrief, who was fired for improperly charging personal expenses to the ACORN affiliate, originally testified under oath as part of a request by the Republican State Committee in Pennsylvania for an injunction against ACORN. The request was denied.
The FBI has been investigating the liberal community organizing group for possible voter registration fraud. MonCrief will appear at the congressional hearing Thursday with Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Republican committee in the civil suit and is on the executive board of the Republican National Lawyers Association. She will provide a legal analysis of MonCrief's testimony. "We will be presenting evidence that ACORN is engaged in voter registration irregularities and fraud," Heidelbaugh tells Newsmax,
According to MonCrief, ACORN considered 40 percent an acceptable level of accurate voter registrations turned in by its workers. She said ACORN barely trained its workers in how to register voters properly and would fire employees if they did not meet a quota of 20 new voter applicants daily. If the registration cards turned in did not meet the quota, supervisors were told to "fire them right there; don't let them waste your money for the day."
If a canvasser was caught committing fraud, ACORN threw the individual "under the bus," MonCrief said. ACORN employees were briefed on how to deny that voter registration fraud existed, she said.
According to MonCrief, the Obama presidential campaign called her in October 2007 asking for coordination in soliciting donations from people who had already made the maximum contribution to Obama allowed by election laws. MonCrief testified that she was given a massive database of Obama donors who had already reached the limit. Her task was to cull it for potential donors who would then donate to Project Vote, an ACORN affiliate which targets individuals and entities to solicit donations.
If true, MonCrief's allegations constitute violations of the Internal Revenue Code, federal campaign finance laws, and laws against voter registration fraud, according to a memo by Cleta Mitchell, co-chairman of the Republican National Lawyers Association. MonCrief said she worked as a development associate from 2005 until early 2008 for Project Vote. Project Vote was so closely aligned with ACORN that they were essentially one and the same, she said.
Project Vote national spokesman Michael McDunnah has denied that the donor list MonCrief worked on came from the Democratic nominee or his campaign. The Obama campaign has denied the allegation. Two ACORN officials from Pennsylvania have insisted that the group has policies in place to train new employees and to spot and flag applications that appear to be fraudulent. (Source: Newsmax: Kessler.)
ACORN Whistleblowers Produce Shocking Testimony on Capitol Hill (Mar 2009) Late last week, Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, called for a hearing to investigate ACORN. You read that right. At a Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties subcommittee hearing entitled “Lessons Learned from the 2008 Election” last Thursday, witness testimony not only drew Conyers to the subcommittee hearing but events led to Conyers strongly urging that subcommittee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) conduct a full hearing on ACORN, calling allegations made at the hearing “serious.”
The shocking testimony that began the chain of events came from Pennsylvania attorney Heather Heidelbaugh, who in October of last year represented “a candidate, voters and the Republican State Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” seeking a preliminary injunction against ACORN and the Secretary of the Commonwealth. The complaint alleged violations of the election code, fraud and misrepresentation, and violations of equal protection and due process.
Heidelbaugh brought with her to the hearing ACORN whistleblowers, including Anita MonCrief, a former Washington, D.C., ACORN employee who came forward to testify last October in the Pennsylvania case. MonCrief, a Democrat who voted for and still supports President Obama, made allegations including the exposure of Obama maxed-out donor lists illegally shared with ACORN, allegations of illegal intermingling of non-profit employees between ACORN and Project Vote, and the use of intimidation tactics and training methods to skirt regulations, among many other assertions.
Testimony also revealed ACORN’s unofficial “Muscle for the Money” program directed at fundraising from corporations. Allegations were made of payments from Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to ACORN's D.C office to harass The Carlyle Group and specifically David Rubenstein, a founder of the company. Even though ACORN D.C. had no interest in The Carlyle Group, they were allegedly paid by SEIU to go break up a banquet and protest at Rubenstein’s house. It was called “Muscle for the Money” because they would go “intimidate people and protest.” Targets of the protests included Sherwin-Williams, H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, and Money Mart among others, testimony revealed. The apparent purpose was to get money from the targeted entities for ACORN.
Perhaps the most controversial accusation revealed by whistleblower testimony was the scheme by which ACORN and Project Vote are paid by foundations per voter registered and the submission of copies of actual voter registration cards to the foundations, which is a violation of federal law.
I spoke with whistleblower Anita MonCrief at the hearing. “ACORN itself is sometimes paid by foundations per registration and, in some case,s they would send copies of the voter registration cards straight to the funder,” MonCrief said. “Workers are improperly trained. … They are trained to never ask, ‘Are you registered to vote?’ because if the person says ‘Yes,’ they have to move on. They ask, ‘Did you vote in the last election,’ and if the person says ‘No,’ they register them again. This is how they duplicate registrations and flood the offices.”
When these allegations began to surface in hearing testimony, Conyers suddenly appeared at the subcommittee hearing and asked to be recognized, saying that he was “… unaware that this was a hearing on ACORN.” Conyers probed those assembled, asking if any representatives of ACORN were present to defend the organization. Conyers called the accusations made against ACORN a “pretty serious matter.” When no one from ACORN came forth, he asked subcommittee chairman Nadler to hold a hearing on ACORN so the organization could defend itself, to which a shocked Nadler replied, “I’ll take it under advisement.”
Conyers pressed the matter, saying, “I think that it would be something that would be worth our time. We've never had one person representing ACORN before the committee. ... I think in all fairness we ought to really examine it.” An exasperated Nadler said he would hold a hearing when he had “credible allegations of misconduct.” Nadler abruptly dismissed the panel shortly thereafter.
“I would encourage chairman Conyers in his call for a hearing and investigation into ACORN,” Heidelbaugh told HUMAN EVENTS in the hallway outside of the hearing. “The Judiciary Committee has oversight of the voting system in America, and ACORN is interfering in it in a large, large way. The federal government in some cases is providing the funding for that interference.” I also spoke with Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a member of the House Judiciary Committee as well as the Constitution subcommittee, who questioned Heidelbaugh during the hearing.
"We’re about to appropriate even more money, and we’ve already appropriated some money that may very well be directed to ACORN,” Gohmert said. “If we know that an organization is guilty of fraud, and we provide them the money and the wherewithal to continue the fraud, then we are accessories to fraud. The only difference between us and a criminal is that we have the ability to pass laws that say even though we’re criminals we’re doing our criminal work legally. It doesn’t make it moral, it doesn’t make it ethical, it just makes it legal to say we can be accessories to fraud by providing the money.” (Source: Human Events: Connie Hair.)
Conyers Kills ACORN Probe -- WHY??? (May 2009) Some coincidences live in infamy. It would have been hard Monday for Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) not to understand how Bill Ayers felt the day the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked. Unforgiving history records that on Sept. 11, 2001, the retired domestic terrorist's "I don't regret setting bombs" comment ran in a New York Times profile.
While obviously of a much lesser magnitude, the House Judiciary Committee chairman's May 4 statement exonerating ACORN couldn't have come out at a worse time. "Based on my review of the information regarding the complaints against ACORN, I have concluded that a hearing on this matter appears unwarranted at this time," Conyers said in a statement aired that night on CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight."
Though Nevada filed criminal charges against ACORN for voter registration fraud, no hearing has been scheduled by Conyers. When on Wednesday this reporter asked Conyers spokesman Jonathan Godfrey to explain the decision not to move forward with a probe, he declined to do so and instead emailed the same statement that was aired on CNN earlier in the week.
It's unclear what exactly crystallized Conyers's thinking, but his reversal is all the more puzzling given the enthusiasm the 23-term congressman showed for holding an ACORN hearing mere weeks ago. On March 19, after hearing the testimony of GOP lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh about ACORN's many misdeeds, Conyers said the allegations were "a pretty serious matter."
Heidelbaugh testified the nonprofit group violated a host of tax, campaign finance, and other laws. She said the presidential campaign of Barack Obama sent ACORN its "maxed out donor list" and asked two of the avowedly nonpartisan group's employees "to reach out to the maxed out donors and solicit donations from them for Get Out the Vote efforts to be run by ACORN."
Heidelbaugh said the New York Times had the donor list story but editors there spiked it the month before the election, a claim she repeated on "The O'Reilly Factor" two weeks later. The newspaper told the Philadelphia-based Bulletin that "political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama."
Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the ranking Republican on the committee's panel on the Constitution, civil rights, and civil liberties, said the Obama campaign's alleged involvement with ACORN might violate federal election law. "ACORN has a pattern of getting in trouble for violating federal election laws," he said.
He also slammed the Old Gray Lady herself. "If true, the New York Times is showing once again that it is a not an impartial observer of the political scene," Sensenbrenner said. "If they want to be a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, they should put Barack Obama approves of this in their newspaper."
Heidelbaugh also testified that ACORN has rendered protest-for-hire services for other left-wing groups and extracted donations from the targets of demonstrations by shaking down those targets as part of its "muscle for the money" program.
Back on March 19, Conyers seemed genuinely disturbed by the claims. He pushed the chairman of the subcommittee Sensenbrenner is ranking member of, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), to hold his own hearing.
A blasé Nadler said he "would certainly consider a hearing on ACORN, if I ever hear any credible allegations." Referencing Heidelbaugh's testimony, Conyers replied, "Whoa. Wait a minute. This is a member of the bar here that got a successful partial injunction against ACORN."
A fortnight later Conyers reiterated his support for an ACORN probe, telling the Washington Times he still wanted to do it and he "probably will." Conyers, whom the article called an "unlikely champion" for ACORN opponents, rejected arguments from fellow Democrats that his committee should steer clear of the issue. "That's our jurisdiction, the Department of Justice," he told the newspaper. "That's what we handle – voter fraud. Unless that's been taken out of my jurisdiction and I didn't know it."
Alas, it was too good to be true. The investigative zeal of the Judiciary Committee chairman soon waned. It was always hard to believe that the ultra-liberal Conyers, who is very sympathetic to ACORN's policy goals and who as recently as October called the radical group "a longstanding and well regarded organization that fights for the poor and working class," really wanted to investigate his longtime ally in the leftist movement. Conyers, who received a 100% rating from ACORN in its 2006 legislative scorecard, showed how truly in sync he was with ACORN when he spoke at the group's national convention last June 22. "I'm through with deregulation," said Conyers. "It doesn't work because the capitalist predators who are waiting unregulated are going to take advantage of it."
Last fall Conyers seemed on hair-trigger alert, ready to pounce on anybody who tangled with ACORN. After media reports surfaced that one ACORN worker was assaulted by an irate homeowner, some ACORN workers were threatened, and two ACORN offices might have been vandalized, Conyers speculated –in the absence of any evidence that the incidents were connected— that a massive anti-ACORN conspiracy might be afoot. "If true, these reports appear to describe possible federal crimes such as criminal civil rights crimes [sic] including conspiracy to deprive the victims (and others) of federally protected constitutional rights, mail and wire offenses, and other more basic offenses such as assault and battery," Conyers wrote in an Oct. 20 letter urging the attorney general and the FBI director to act.
"Depending on the circumstances and the possible involvement of a group of individuals, the conduct also raises serious questions under the federal RICO law," he wrote. Yet the allegations of racketeering made against ACORN at the Judiciary Committee hearing in March don't seem to interest Conyers.
There is so much about the Alinskyite group that a congressional probe could explore.
Former ACORN employees say ACORN makes no effort to remove bogus voter registrations. "There's no quality control on purpose, no checks and balances," Nate Toler, who worked on an ACORN voter effort in Missouri told the Wall Street Journal in 2006. "The internal motto is 'We don't care if it's a lie, just so long as it stirs up the conversation,'" he said.
When accused of breaking the law, ACORN's usual approach is to deny, deny, deny, and then accuse somebody, usually Republicans or law enforcement officials, of racism and voter suppression. In early October when the group's Las Vegas office was raided on orders from the state's Democratic attorney general and secretary of state, Matthew Henderson, ACORN's southwest regional director, was glib.
"The raid was a stunt designed perhaps to make them look tough on voter fraud," Henderson said. "We don't think fraud is a rampant problem. This was a politically motivated stunt, that is all there is to it because those new voters can reshape the electorate of Nevada."
On the May 6 edition of the Glenn Beck Program, after a heated interview about the new charges in Nevada, the host ejected ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson from the studio following an off-camera altercation. "I threw him out of the studio, get the hell out of my studio," Beck told viewers he said after Levenson accused him during the commercial break of being "afraid of black people."
Although ACORN is an enthusiastic supporter of government regulation of the economy, it can't tolerate being burdened by those same regulations. In 1995, it sued California for an exemption from the law that requires it to pay its own employees a minimum wage. With a mendicant fervor, ACORN argued that keeping its employees in poverty helps to boost their zeal to help the poor. It lost.
The group also supports the continued imposition of equal employment opportunity laws on the rest of America, but argued it shouldn't have to comply with those same laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had to sue ACORN to force it comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement's legislative accomplishments.
The taxpayer-subsidized ACORN network, which owes millions of dollars in back taxes, also played a role in the subprime mortgage mess that has undermined Americans' support for free market problem-solving and set off a worldwide chain of financial troubles.
Then there's ACORN's eight-year-long coverup of the million-dollar embezzlement by founder Wade Rathke's brother. When ACORN board members Marcel Reid and Karen Inman demanded to see the financial documents last year, they were expelled from the group. Reid and Inman have since become whistleblowers and formed a group called ACORN 8 that aims to reform ACORN.
And let's not even get started on ACORN's history of union-busting. Surely Conyers has all, or at least some, of this information. What happened in recent weeks that changed his mind? (Source: American Spectator.)
CHANGE Conyers abandons plan to probe ACORN (Jun 2009) House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea. Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket. "The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times.
The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass. Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers' explanation for his change of heart. "If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he want to [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?" she said. "Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is 'the power?'"
Capitol Hill Democrats had bristled at proposed hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote. The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into possible voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.
ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members. The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe. The group did not immediately respond Thursday to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.
(Souce: Washington Times.) (SITE NOTE: We find it curious that the case of a hearing for ACORN arises at the same time Conyers wife Monica Conyers was implicated in a Detroit bribery case and the FBI said they have "electronic surveillance evidence" that linked her to the crime. Supposedly Monica Conyers is the “Council Member A” listed in a court document as receiving more than $6,000 for her fall 2007 vote on a multimillion-dollar sludge contract. Monica Conyers, meanwhile, asked for prayers during her weekly public access television show, without directly addressing the scandal that has the FBI investigating how Houston-based Synagro Technologies won a $47 million-a-year contract to recycle sludge from a wastewater treatment plant. The sludge scandal broke in January when Jim Rosendall, Synagro’s Michigan representative, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery. His plea agreement described how he distributed cash and other gifts to officials, including an unidentified Council Member A, to win the city business. The probe cooled for nearly five months, at least publicly, until Rayford Jackson, a local businessman and Synagro contractor, pleaded guilty to the same charge Monday and said he gave more than $6,000 to Council Member A. Jackson said a courier delivered $3,000 to the council member on Nov. 20, 2007, the same day Conyers joined with the majority in approving the Synagro deal 5-4. An unspecified payment was made a month earlier outside a Mr. Fish restaurant, and another $3,000 was passed in a McDonald’s parking lot in December of the same year, Jackson said. In a separate matter, the council in March 2007 voted to allow a yard-waste composting operation on land controlled by Rosendall. He said an “intermediary” in that deal passed $5,000 to $8,000 to Council Member A. Monica Conyers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery in connection with a city sludge-hauling scandal. As a member of the Detroit City Council in 2007, Conyers cast the deciding vote in favor of awarding a $1.2 billion contract to Synagro Technologies Inc. This scandal will probably not dent John Conyers 45-year record but it starts to make one think of how "Chicago thug politics" can be played. Recently anyone who opposes Obama or Obama friends end up with lawsuits (ACORN whistle blowers, eligibility plaintiffs), fired (IG Walpin and others), have sex scandals revealed (Gov Sanford), deluged with ethics sutis (Palin), etc. We just find it coincidental that Conyers raises possibility of ACORN hearings, and his wife suddently gets put into the wringer -- but not charged or indicted.)
ACORN charged in Nevada voter-fraud case -- State says political advocacy group illegally paid to register new voters (May 2009) Nevada authorities filed criminal charges Monday against the political advocacy group ACORN and two former employees, alleging they illegally paid canvassers to sign up new voters during last year's presidential campaign. ACORN denied the charges and said it would defend itself in court.
Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto said the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now had a handbook and policies requiring employees in Las Vegas to sign up 20 new voters per day to keep their $8- to $9-per-hour jobs. Canvassers who turned in 21 new voter registrations earned a "blackjack" bonus of $5 per shift, Masto added. Those who didn't meet the minimum were fired. "By structuring employment and compensation around a quota system, ACORN facilitated voter registration fraud," Masto said. She accused ACORN executives of hiding behind and blaming employees, and vowed to hold the national nonprofit corporation accountable for training manuals that she said "clearly detail, condone and ... require illegal acts."
Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller emphasized the case involved "registration fraud, not voter fraud," and insisted that no voters in Nevada were paid for votes and no unqualified voters were allowed to cast ballots. Law-enforcement agencies in about a dozen states investigated fake voter registration cards submitted by ACORN during the 2008 presidential election campaign, but Nevada is the first to bring charges against the organization, ACORN officials said.
'Mickey Mouse' vote
ACORN has said the bogus cards listing such names as "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" represented less than 1 percent of the 1.3 million collected nationally and were completed by lazy workers trying to get out of canvassing neighborhoods. The organization has said it notified election officials whenever such bogus registrations were suspected.
ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson denied the Nevada allegations on behalf of ACORN, which works to get low-income people to vote and lists offices in 41 states and the District of Columbia. He blamed former rogue employees for the alleged wrongdoing.
"Our policy all along has been to pay workers at an hourly rate and to not pay employees based on any bonus or incentive program," he said. "When it was discovered that an employee was offering bonuses linked to superior performance, that employee was ordered to stop immediately."
Levenson said the two former ACORN organizers named in Monday's criminal complaint — Christopher Howell Edwards and Amy Adele Busefink — no longer work for ACORN and would not be represented by the organization.
Edwards, 33, of Gilroy, Calif., and Busefink, 26, of Seminole, Fla., could not immediately be reached for comment.
June 3 hearing
Masto identified Edwards as the ACORN Las Vegas office field director in 2008, and said timesheets indicate that ACORN corporate officers were aware of the "blackjack" bonus program and failed to stop it. The attorney general said Busefink was ACORN's deputy regional director.
The complaint filed in Las Vegas Justice Court accuses ACORN and Edwards each of 13 counts of compensation for registration of voters, and Busefink of 13 counts of principle to the crime of compensation for registration of voters. Each charge carries the possibility of probation or less than 1 year in jail, Masto said. A court hearing was scheduled June 3 in Las Vegas, prosecutor Conrad Hafen said. (Source: MSNBC.) (SITE NOTE: Just hours earlier his fellow Democrats in Nevada, Secretary of State Ross Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto dropped a bombshell. ACORN and two former senior ACORN employees in the state, they announced, had been charged with a total of 39 felony counts related to voter registrations. "By structuring employment and compensation around a quota system, ACORN facilitated voter registration fraud in this state," said Masto. "Nevada will not tolerate violations of the law by individuals nor will it allow corporations to hide behind or place blame on their employees when its training manuals clearly detail, condone and, indeed, require, illegal acts in performing the job for the corporation."
Nevada alleges that last year ACORN paid canvassers between $8.00 and $9.00 per hour to register people to vote, but canvassers who fell short of the quota of 20 voter registration forms per shift were fired. This illegal policy was "clearly outlined in the training materials the organization used to train new employees," according (pdf) to the state.
Nevada claims ACORN also offered canvassers additional compensation in the form of a bonus program called "Blackjack" or "21+" that paid canvassers a $5.00 bonus. Each canvasser who brought in 21 or more completed voter registration forms per shift would receive the bonus. Such schemes are illegal in the state because they give canvassers an incentive to file fraudulent forms. Nevada alleges the bonus program "was created by employee Christopher Edwards, the Field Director for the Las Vegas office," and that ACORN timesheets show the group's management knew about it and "failed to take immediate action to terminate it." The state claims that ACORN's Deputy Regional Director Amy Busefink knew about the bonus program and "aided and abetted the scheme by approving" it. An initial hearing in the criminal case has been scheduled for June 3 in Las Vegas.)
ACORN got $53 million in federal funds since 94, now eligible for up to $8 billion more -- inspite of investigations (May 2009) At least $53 million in federal funds have gone to ACORN activists since 1994, and the controversial group could get up to $8.5 billion more tax dollars despite being under investigation for voter registration fraud in a dozen states.
The economic stimulus bill enacted in February contains $3 billion that the non-profit activist group known more formally as the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now could receive, and 2010 federal budget contains another $5.5 billion that could also find its way into the group’s coffers. An Examiner review of federal spending data found that ACORN has received at least $53 million in federal money since 1994. A downloadable spreadsheet of the $53 million is posted on washingtonexaminer.com.
Scott Levenson, ACORN's national spokesman, said "we have received no significant federal funding." When asked by The Examiner about the $53 million, Levenson said: "If you listen to some of the Republicans who are going to get a billion dollars from the stimulus package, I'm still waiting for my share. Their claims are overinflated, this is a gimmick and an attempt to demonize ACORN."
At least one lawmaker, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-MN, wants to stop the flow of tax dollars to ACORN, but House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-MA, stands in her way. Frank plans to strip out an anti-ACORN provision Bachman succeeded in inserting in the proposed Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act that could be voted on by the House today or Thursday. Bahmann’s amendment was unanimously approved by Frank’s committee in a voice vote last week. It would block organizations that have been indicted for voter registration or vote fraud from receiving housing counseling grants and legal assistance grants. The Bachman prohibition would apply only to the proposed mortgage reform legislation, and would not change ACORN’s ability to receive funds under either the stimulus program or 2010 budget.
Frank said his panel’s approval of the Bachman amendment was a mistake and that he had not carefully reviewed its language when he previously voted yes. “I did not read it carefully, and it was in the last minute that the amendment was accepted,” Frank said. “It is a deeply flawed amendment and I am opposed to it. Banning people from possible participation in government programs based on an indictment is a violation of the basic principles of due process.”
Frank plans to offer another amendment to the bill on the House floor that would allow non-profits that have been indicted to receive grants under the legislation so long as they have not been convicted.
Bachmann said Frank’s amendment would “eviscerate the meaning” of her original amendment. “I am disturbed by how cavalierly Washington spends the taxpayers’ money,” Bachmann told The Examiner. “The new charges brought against ACORN this week in Nevada reaffirm my concern about giving taxpayer dollars to organizations that are repeatedly under criminal indictment. Last week, I asked: Whose side are we on, the taxpayer's or ACORN's?”
Non-profit groups like ACORN can apply for $2 billion in funds set aside for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes under the $800 billion economic stimulus bill passed earlier this year. An additional $1 billion in Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) are included in the stimulus bill. ACORN and other non-profit advocacy groups could receive through federally funded housing programs administered by state and local governments.
“ACORN is not normally eligible to apply directly for CDBG funds but may apply to the states and local government units that are CDBG recipients,” Matthew Vadum, a senior analyst and editor with Capital Research Center (CRC), said. “This opens the way for ACORN to receive billions more in taxpayer money.”
In addition to the $3 billion available in the stimulus package, the proposed $47.5 billion Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget provides $1 billion for an affordable housing trust fund and $4.5 billion in CDBG funds that could be funneled to ACORN indirectly. “This means $8.5 billion is on the table this year
