John C. Drew: Even Republicans Rejected Info About Obama’s Past

Gulag Bound
By John C. Drew
American Thinker 

What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008.  I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding.  See my earlier article on American Thinker.

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus.  The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.

The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign.  When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. — completely divorced from the profit motive — which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution.  In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.

Although I was surprised by Barack Obama’s insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama’s Marxism failed to gain any media traction with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Once I saw the significance of my face-to-face observations on the young Obama, I went out of my way to get my story on record with the Orange County Register.  I tried to contact, among others, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, the folks behind the Swiftboat ads, and the McCain campaign.

I thought I would get a phone call back from Fox News — someone, somewhere — and I still do not understand why no one seemed to catch on to the urgency of the situation.  I understand that I did not have audio tape of young Obama.  I did not have any photos or home movies.  Nevertheless, I was extremely active in the leftist politics and counter-cultural milieu of Occidental College in the 1970s.

As a younger man, I had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Cornell, which, I would think, gave me some credibility in measuring young Obama’s ideological convictions.  I quickly saw that other people who had known the young Obama were featured in various news articles.  It seemed to me that I should have been just another interview for any journalist, producer, or campaign consultant interested in checking out my story and testing my credibility against the facts.

In frustration, I was also posting what I knew on The Caucus Blog site at the New York Times.  My expectation was that someone from the Times would call me and follow up on the leads I was sending out.  Here is a sample of what I was doing in October 2008 to get the word out about Obama’s Marxist ideology.

I even thought of scheduling my own press conference on the campus of Occidental College through their campus Republican club.  Internally, I was conflicted by the urgency of what I knew and the sense that it was best for the story to break out in a manner supportive of the McCain campaign.

What shocked me about my experience in the summer of 2008 is that I thought my experience as a Williams College political science professor, my small business owner status, and my visibility in the Orange County community would allow my message to immediately go to the very top of the McCain campaign.  I thought my story would be welcomed by Fox News.

Since then, things have slowly gotten better.  My story on the young Marxist Obama has appeared in Michael Savage’s Trickle-Up Poverty, Paul Kengor’s Dupes, Stanley Kurtz’s Radical-In-Chief, and Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama.

Nevertheless, I think there is something broken in our media and campaign system.  I do not think most independents or conservatives understand, or fully appreciate, the tremendous advantages the left derives from having the mainstream media serve as the fully paid, completely sympathetic, Dan Rather-level opposition research team of the Democratic Party.  It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner, while elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations.

If Republicans are going to win in 2012, I think they need to make some changes so that they are more friendly to the whistle-blowers bringing them bad news about the Obama administration.  Personally, I would like to see Republicans create new ways to collect negative news stories on liberals by 1) including web pages requesting opposition research from leakers; 2) establishing guidelines for leakers that help them give campaign decision-makers the confidence to pursue appropriate leads; and 3) instituting feedback mechanisms so leakers have some minimal assurance that they have been heard by top campaign managers and that their information has been discarded for technical or strategic reasons and not simply because it was overlooked by a careless staff member.

I think recognition of this problem should be the first step in taking systematic action to prevent flawed Democrat candidates from winning office.  In the meantime, I predict that we will see more examples of media failure as the left dominates the muckraking journalism profession while the right seems too dependent on a small handful of seemingly obscure, overworked journalists and — as my case illustrates — unconnected and often baffled citizen activists.

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog. Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College. Today, Dr. Drew makes his living as an author, trainer, and consultant in the field of non-profit grant writing, fundraising, and program evaluation. To book Dr. Drew for your event, please go here.


No Joke: Obama/Soros Promote “Open Government”

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

The Obama State Department and a George Soros-funded organization calling itself Global Integrity have launched an “Open Government” international initiative that should be a subject of late-night jokes.

“Here in the United States, we’ve worked to make government more open and responsive than ever before,” Obama said, as his administration fights congressional requests for information about the Solyndra bankruptcy and the U.S.-Brazil alliance to help the socialist and pro-Castro Latin American country develop its own oil resources.

Interestingly, the new “Open Government Partnership” project was announced on Tuesday at the United Nations by President Obama and Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, a former Marxist terrorist.

The Obama Administration’s failure to produce documents related to a $535 million federal loan guarantee issued to solar panel maker Solyndra prompted the Republican majority on a House Energy and Commerce Committee panel to subpoena the material.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, says the congressional probe has been “hampered by a lack of cooperation from this Administration, which forced us to issue a subpoena for certain records.”

“Since the first day of his Administration, President Barack Obama has made Open Government a high priority,” declares the “Open Government Partnership National Action Plan.”

This would be laughable were it not for the fact that the initiative and its cheerleaders, including those at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, are apparently taking it seriously.

But the conservative legal group Judicial Watch has filed a number of lawsuits, complaints and Freedom of Information Act legal actions against President Barack Obama and his administration “in pursuit of the president’s repeated violations of the law and his contempt for the public’s right to know.”

Obama used his U.N. speech on Wednesday to urge the world to “harness the power of open societies” in order to fight corruption. This sounded very much like George Soros, a funder of this new project who has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year promoting “open societies” in the U.S. and around the world. Soros, one of the richest men in the U.S., named one of his foundations the “Open Society Institute” but runs a secretive off-shore hedge fund, the Quantum Group of Funds, based in the Caribbean country of Curaçao, a tax haven.

Investigative reporter Matthew Vadum notes, “Soros talks a good game when it comes to openness and transparency. With an obedient media in tow, he postures as a defender of business ethics and good government but the lofty ideals he espouses apply only to other people. In the end, when his personal interests are at stake, his professed ideals get discarded like yesterday’s racing form. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that this man who has described himself as ‘some kind of god’ now doesn’t want to comply with new disclosure rules that accompany the Dodd-Frank law. To avoid complying, he is closing his $25 billion Quantum funds to investors outside his family.”

Vadum points out that Soros objects to simply registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because “it would open up Soros’s shady dealings to unprecedented public scrutiny.”

Soros, convicted of insider trading in France, engaged in a complex financial transaction that resulted in the Bank of England losing billions of dollars defending the British pound before having to devalue it. He has controversial investments in places like Colombia, where the banks have been penetrated by drug cartels eager to launder their drug money.

In a major court case filed by the law offices of David H. Relkin, Soros was charged with “money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, and bid rigging” and of having a “pattern of money laundering activities.” A Soros representative was quoted by the Reuters news agency as saying that the lawsuit was completely without merit.

The Soros role in the U.S. housing market collapse continues to be a subject of much controversy, stemming from a meeting he had with John A. Paulson, a Wall Street trader who made billions of dollars on the decline in housing prices.

A possible Soros role in the Obama Administration’s dealings with Brazil continues to generate controversy.

The administration officially launched an “energy partnership” with Brazil in August. “We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,” Obama had told a group of Brazilian business leaders in May 2011.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank had proposed $2 billion in loans to the Brazilian oil company Petrobras to ensure the purchase of U.S. goods as the company explores for oil.

However, in an April 29, 2011 letter to Fred Hochberg, President of the Export-Import Bank, Senator David Vitter complained that the administration was stonewalling his request for specific information as it relates to ExIm loans to Petrobras. He said, “I was very specific about the information I requested from ExIm more than a month ago. I requested the particulars of the return on investment the American taxpayer can expect from these loans as well as the U.S businesses intended to benefit from the financing arrangements. Is it safe to assume that ExIm does preliminary analysis before issuing loans that evaluates the return on these loans to the U.S. Government and U.S. Businesses? Is it also safe to assume that ExIm should readily be able to provide that information to congress upon request?”

Vitter was referring to a March 17 letter to Hochberg in which he requested:

  • The names of all U.S. companies that have increased exports based on this loan.
  • The specific product exports that have increased based on this loan.
  • The return on investment for this loan during the next 5 and 10-year windows.
  • The names of all U.S. and foreign investors, including institutional investors, that increased their shareholdings in Petrobras in excess of $50 million within a 6 month period before and after the ExIm loan.

The Ex-Im Bank had approved the loans to Petrobas on April 14, 2009, during a time when Soros was buying and selling millions of shares in the company.

While potentially embarrassing facts and figures continue to be withheld by the Obama Administration, the Open Government Partnership is making use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to create the public impression that Obama is open and accountable to the American people.

The Global Integrity group is managing the project and says that it is “supported by a diverse mix of charitable foundations, governments, multilateral institutions, and the private sector.”

The list includes:

  • Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
  • Inter-American Development Bank
  • National Endowment for Democracy
  • Open Society Institute (Soros-funded)
  • Open Society Justice Fund (also Soros-funded)
  • Sunrise Foundation
  • U.S. Department of State
  • Wallace Global Fund
  • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
  • The World Bank

Google is listed separately as having provided $350,000.

OGP says that it is “overseen by a multi-stakeholder International Steering Committee comprised of government and civil society representatives” that includes Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive.

The National Security Archive receives millions of dollars from left-wing foundations, including a recent grant of $300,000 from the Open Society Institute.

One of the original sponsors of the National Security Archive was Morton Halperin, now a top aide to Soros, who was Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union and director of the Center for National Security Studies.

Although Halperin’s bio says that he had held “senior positions at the State Department and Pentagon, and served on the NSC staff during the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton administrations,” it fails to note that his nomination as an Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1993 by President Clinton was withdrawn under fire. Senator John McCain said that the nominee’s “own writings and statements” display views that “are clearly inimical to the security interests of the United States.” Other national security experts said Halperin had an unhealthy animus and hostility toward the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence agencies that are supposed to protect the U.S. from foreign and domestic threats.

In their 1976 book, The Lawless State: The Crimes of the U.S. Intelligence Agencies, Halperin and his co-authors attacked the CIA for its role in overthrowing the Marxist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, and the FBI for investigating the communist connections of Martin Luther King Jr. after being requested to do so by then-Attorney General Bobby Kennedy. Halperin wrote, “Communist party affiliation is hardly evidence that someone is a subversive foreign agent. Many members of the Communist party are and were patriotic citizens.” In fact, the FBI had evidence that the Communist Party USA was funded and controlled by the Soviet Union.

The National Security Archive was among several organizations presenting Obama with an “anti-secrecy award” at a ceremony last March that was closed to the public and the press. Politico reported, “…Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.”

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press Executive Director Lucy A. Dalglish said that Obama was given the award for “encouraging agencies to release information to the public…”

Even some left-wingers were offended by this, saying that the award should be rescinded and that “Such false awards only stand to backfire and hurt the cause of open government.”

FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, the founder and president of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, posted a video about the Obama award, exposing funding for some of the pro-Obama groups from George Soros and others.


The office of Senator Vitter has informed us that, despite his follow-up April 29, 2011 letter on the matter of the Brazil oil deal which complained about a lack of a response from the Export-Import Bank, a letter was in fact received from Bank President Fred P. Hochberg. It answered some, but not all, of the questions about the questionable financial arrangements with the Brazilian oil company Petrobas, a company that Obama supporter and billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros had invested in. “Over the years,” he said, “Petrobas has been a valued customer of the Bank and has supported the exports of many U.S. companies’ goods and services, both large and small.” He named some companies that have benefitted from past transactions “of this type.” He had no information about what the return on investments in Petrobas would be over the next 5 to 10 years. In regard to the critical question about “requested names and other information associated with investors in Petrobas,” Hochberg said it was “not information we track or have access to.” Vitter had asked for “The names of all U.S. and foreign investors, including institutional investors, that increased their shareholdings in Petrobras in excess of $50 million within a 6 month period before and after the ExIm loan.” Hochberg did not indicate that he would try to locate a federal source with such information and provide it to Vitter.


The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 09/23/11

The Watcher’s Council

This week’s Watcher’s Council results are in and quite a contest it was! We had a great crop of entries, even beyond our usual high quality. Believe it or not, we had a 5 way tie going on in the Council category that was only resolved by one of the last votes in.

The big story this week has been the ‘Palestinian’ attempt to violate the agreements they signed both in the Road Map and the Oslo Accords by getting the UN to unilaterally declare them a state. This week’s winner, The Colossus of Rhodey’s, Let me tell ‘ya something, takes a strong look at the real nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict in view of the current circus at the UN.

Here’s a slice:

You can’t get more moronic than the absolute cretins who continually criticize Israel about their “occupation” and “harsh” treatment of the Palestinians … yet either completely overlook how the Palis (and their Arab allies) feel about, and treat, Israelis and Jews in general … or just refuse to address it. I’m serious. These people have serious flaws in their basic moral structure.

The catalyst for this post is two-fold. First is this Jay Nordlinger piece:

I was talking yesterday to a friend of mine about the Israel Philharmonic’s experience at the BBC Proms. Demonstrators refused to let the orchestra proceed with its concert. My friend said, “Were they pro-Palestinian?” I said to her, “Well, I would call them anti-Israeli.”

I am pro-Palestinian, and so is Natan Sharansky — and so is Bibi Netanyahu. We want Palestinians, and everyone else, to live in peace and freedom. We are so pro-Palestinian that we actually think they should be free of dictatorship, tyranny, want, squalor, and lies. Something like 1.5 million Arabs — “Palestinians,” if you like — live in Israel. (It used to be that the only “Palestinians” were Jews. The Israel Phil. began life as the PSO, the Palestine Symphony Orchestra.) When Palestinian homosexuals and other “undesirables” flee for their lives from the West Bank or Gaza, where do they flee? You bet.

“Pro-Israeli” and “pro-Palestinian” — very unhelpful terms. Decent people are pro-everybody. But these terms are unavoidable, I suppose, like those other unhelpful terms “pro-war” and “anti-war.” We’re all anti-war (except for psychopaths): Some of us think that this or that war is necessary and justified, some of us don’t.

Precisely. How would history have been different if the Palestinians accepted the 1948 UN Partition Plan? There was the ever-sought after “two state solution” right then and there. But no; though imperfect (as all plans are), the Plan fairly dealt with increasingly difficult issues that the British had gotten weary of (hence, their turning the hassle over the then-nascent UN). What we had was one side accepting the plan and beginning to make their new sovereign home, and the other shunning it — and then teaming with numerous surrounding countries to obliterate the other new sovereign state. That’s right — obliterate.

And this was just the beginning.

Jews, hundreds of thousands of who were forced to flee their homes in myriad Arab countries as a result of the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict, settled elsewhere — many in Israel. But the Palestinians? Two of their “friends” gobbled up the territory allotted for them (as per the Partition Plan) after their unsuccessful attack on the new Israel. Then, the Palis weren’t accepted by their Arab “friends” if they wanted to resettle there. Like … why?

The history since then, as any fan of history knows, is one of continued Arab aggression towards Israel, and one of continued Israeli survival and victory. 1967 and 1973 were the other two “big” conflicts, but there have been many more “smaller’ skirmishes in between and beyond. But the utter idiocy of those believe there is some sort of … “equivalence” between Israel and the Palestinians continues to know no bounds.

We actually did have a tie between two fine entries in the Non-Council category, Fat Man On A Keyboard’s Decline And Fall submitted by Simply Jews, a critique of journalist John Pilger and Barry Rubin’s A New, Selective ‘Semi-Antisemitism’? Only Jews Opposing Obama Are Evil, Greedy, and Have Dual Loyalty submitted by Bookworm Room, a look at the Left’s latest bit of Alinskyite labeling, this time of Jews who are belatedly questioning President Obama’s policies on Israel.

Both pieces were well written, but I put on my Watcher’s hat and ultimately awarded the prize to Rubin’s piece as the stronger of the two.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that!


New Jersey Meeting

By: Trevor Loudon
New Zeal

New Zealand blogger, Trevor Loudon, is addressing a Somerset County (NJ) Tea Party meeting October 19, 2011, at the Bridgewater Public Library, 1 Vogt Drive Bridgewater.

Doors open at 6:45 PM, Meeting time 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM

Light refreshments will be served.

Cost: Free / Donations accepted


We are pleased to present Trevor Loudon. The TrevorLoudon.com blog has done tremendous work uncovering communist and socialist influence in the United States. Trevor was one of the people who got the goods on Van Jones. This information was used by Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly in outing Jones. His sources must be phenomenal and his research is impeccable.

This is a rare opportunity to explore the issues with Trevor (as a Kiwi, he is particularly interested in meeting grassroots tea party people, so I hope everyone will take the opportunity to share your experiences with him).

Somerset County Tea Party would like to invite other Tea Party people and interested parties to attend.

If you would like to come along, please contact George Hathaway on [email protected].