Today, NRO’s Stanley Kurtz published another confirmation regarding Barack Obama’s membership in the Marxist ACORN-connected New Party that he found in the “updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society [which] now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party”:
- On the evening of January 11, 1996 … Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. … He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:
- Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.
Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.
Katz first wrote about Obama’s New Party association October 20, 2008:
- During his first campaign for the Illinois state senate in 1995-96, Barack Obama was a member of, and was endorsed by, the far-left New Party. Obama’s New Party ties give the lie to his claim to be a post-partisan, post-ideological pragmatist. Particularly in Chicago, the New Party functioned as the electoral arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). So despite repeated attempts to distance himself from ACORN, Obama’s New Party ties raise disturbing questions about his links to those proudly militant leftists.
While admitting in his 2008 article that “a small group of bloggers have productively explored Obama’s New Party ties”, Kurtz can never bring himself to give credit where it is due. If it were not for this “small group of bloggers” Kurtz and others who have capitalized on that research would not be writing about it.
In early October 2008, Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog uncovered and posted a photo of Barack Obama with members of the New Party. In fact, Kurtz linked to Loudon’s blog, which continued to reveal copies of more New Party documents that included Obama’s name.
However, it was months earlier, in April 2008 that RezkoWatch, the forerunner to my RBO blog, wrote about Barack Obama’s connection to the New Party.
Chicagoans, by the way, were well aware of the New Party connection and some even blogged about it. I am thankful to Bill Baar and Dan Curry for their reports, which provided the sources for my “reveal”. All emphasis is mine.
Carl Davidson, a former president of the 1960s’ radical organization Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), was a “key organizer” of the October 2, 2002, Chicago antiwar rally at which Sen. Barack Obama spoke out against the war in Iraq, saying that he was against “dumb wars”, RezkoWatch reported April 28, 2008.
In a February 2, 2007, Socialist Worker article, Adam Turl wrote:
- Carl Davidson, a former Vietnam War protest leader who helped organize the 2002 rally Obama so famously spoke at, says that after the protest and the 2003 invasion, Obama’s position on the war began to morph.
“After he visited Iraq when the war was on, he turned,” Davidson wrote recently. “Now we had to set aside whether it was right or wrong to invade, now we had to find the ‘smart’ path to victory, not Bush’s ‘dumb’ path…[I]n dealing with Iran, we had to leave on the table bombing their nuclear sites. For this, a lot of the local antiwar activists started calling him ‘Barack O’bomb’em.’
“He wasn’t listening much to us anymore, but to folks much higher up in the [Democratic Leadership Council] orbit. He had bigger plans.”
A few days later, Dan Curry of Reverse Spin picked up on Davidson’s comments.
- While Barack Obama cavorts in Hollywood with the likes of George Clooney and spars with Hillary Clinton, the Marxist community in Chicago sits patiently and waits.
They too, want an audience with Obama. They won’t be giving him money. They want to know if he’s still the same person they endorsed in 1995 when he first ran for state Senate.
This fascinating link [from January 21, 2007] is courtesy of Bill Baar. It is a discussion board post one month ago by Carl Davidson, a longtime fringe leftist who claims to know Obama well. To put Davidson’s philosophy in perspective, read this account of a [September 2006] meeting of the reconstituted radical group SDS where he said his Vietnam era generation was “the last generation that believed in America.”
Bernardine Dohrn, the Weather Underground terrorist who now teaches at Northwestern University, sent her regrets (seriously).
Anyway, here’s what Davidson said on the discussion board about Obama. He recalled the good old days, when Barack and the far left Chicago New Party were on the same page:
- I’m from Chicago, too, and known Obama from the time he came to the New Party to get our endorsement for his first race ever. I’ve been in his home, and as an IL legislator, he’s helped or community technology movement a number of times. He said all the right things to the ACORN and New Party folks, and we endorsed him, but I noticed too, that he seemed to measure every answer to questions put to him several times before coming out with it.
He spoke at our first antiwar rally. He spent most of his speech detailing all the wars in history he supported, then finally made a distinction between just wars and “dumb” wars, and going into Iraq, which was still six months down the road then, was a “dumb war,” and he flatly opposed it. Good, that put him on our side, and some of us organized a fundraiser for him for his Senate race. But a friend of mine, and also an Obama campaigner, at that first rally, nudged me and asked, “Who was that speech for? Certainly not this crowd.” Now we know.
After he visited Iraq when the war was on, he turned. Now we had to set aside whether it was right or wrong to invade, now we had to find the “smart” path to victory, not Bush’s “dumb” path. Also, in dealing with Iran, we had to leave on the table bombing their nuclear sites. For this, a lot of the local antiwar activists started calling him “Barack O’bomb ‘em”. He wasn’t listening much to us anymore, but to folks much higher up in the DLC orbit. He had bigger plans.
To be fair, I read a recent speech he gave to laid-off workers from a plant closing out in Galesburg, IL, around globalization, corporate responsibility, the safety net, the third wave, and so on. It was very good. Save for not mentioning the war, I probably couldn’t written a better one myself.
Giving the current crisis and developments in Congress, he may move back to our side on the war, and get as far as, say, [Penn. Rep. John] Murtha’s position. But right now he’s not in the “Out Now” camp, not as good as Murtha, and a triangulator par excellence. I’ve watched him do it up close. The press and his publicists put him in our camp, but if you look at his speeches and votes since his trip to Iraq, I think you’ll find he has a way to go. Our peace groups here are sending a bunch of us to visit him soon, and get on his case. Perhaps he’s still a work in progress, as Jesse Jackson says, but he still has a way to go to get back in my good graces, and those of many more of us here also.
Carl Davidson, Chicago
I wonder if the Obama camp will publicize this meeting. It promises to be more interesting than the one in Hollywood.”
There you have it. Looking back, Davidson’s rant was loaded with information and warnings. The left was already well aware that Obama is a triangulator and will frame whatever message he needs to deliver to fit the audience and circumstances.
It also confirmed long ago that Barack Obama was well established with the New Party and ACORN camp.
(Carl Davidson comment in 3 – 2 – 1.)