Today on our radio program, The Rundown With Sirota and Brown, David and I had a vigorous debate about the John Sununu gaffe over Obama’s “Americanism” and whether that was a fair charge or not. But one of the issues that stuck with me from our debate today was the phrase “guilt by association” and whether or not Obama could be guilty of being a socialist, communist or any other adherent to a political philosophy other than American democratic republic constitutionalism. I asserted that Obama’s membership in the New Party and mentorship by avowed communist Frank Marshall Davis was evidence of Barack Obama’s political philosophy. That association led to our discussion about whether or not one could be guilty by association.
The New Party was a socialist third party intent on upending American free enterprise:
The documents reveal that the New Party’s central aim was to move the United States steadily closer to European social democracy, a goal that Mitt Romney has also attributed to Obama. New Party leaders disdained mainstream Democrats, considering them tools of business, and promised instead to create a partnership between elected officials and local community organizations, with the goal of socializing the American economy to an unprecedented degree.
Documents have revealed that Obama not only sought the endorsement of the New Party for his Illinois state senate campaign, but that he joined the party, too, despite the denials of his representatives and claims that he never joined the party:
Now, through careful archival research, Kurtz has proven his case–and proven once again that there are many people on the left who have been willing to misrepresent and obscure facts about Barack Obama, as well as many in the mainstream media who have acted as Obama’s accomplices rather than searching for the truth.
So, Obama was a member of the socialist New Party. Why is that important?
During our debate today the statement was made that someone shouldn’t be guilty by association, and that Obama’s dalliance with the New Party and his relationship with Frank Marshall Davis shouldn’t be evidence of Obama’s political mindset. But somewhere in the recesses of my mind were vague recollections of the media making a big deal of “guilt by association” and, I was correct. In an Salon article Alexander Zaitchik composes a lengthy piece about the influence of Cleon Skousen over Glenn Beck and his 9-12 movement. The connection was so strong according to Zaitchik that he wrote “In reality, however, the so-called 912ers were summoned to D.C. by the man who changed Beck’s life…”
A mentor so strong in Salon’s opinion that it changed Beck’s life. So, if we assume the Salon article and Zaitchik’s research to be accurate then mentors can and do change people’s lives and shape their worldview.
Guilt by association? Apparently so if it is Glenn Beck. Not so if it is Barack Obama.
Obama’s associates include Frank Marshall Davis, the New Party, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, et al.
Mentors and associates do matter. Just ask Salon.