Despite all the self righteous denials during the 2008 presidential campaign, non fans of President Barack Obama (D) insisted he was, at best, a far left Democrat, hostile to the free market ie, capitalism, and a great believer in government control similar to Europe's so called "social democracy." Stanley Kurtz of National Review Online claimed he was a member of the New Party, a group tied to ACORN, and was condemned. Now, four years later, Kurtz has proof. 

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a "contract" promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Why did the "most transparent ever" candidate and now president deny his relationship to ACORN and the New Party?  Kurtz explains.

The group was notorious in 2008 for thug tactics, fraudulent voter registrations, and its role in popularizing risky subprime lending. Admitting that he had helped to fund ACORN's voter-registration efforts and train some of their organizers would doubtless have been an embarrassment but not likely a crippling blow to his campaign. So why not simply confess the tie and make light of it? The problem for Obama was ACORN's political arm, the New Party.

The revelation in 2008 that Obama had joined an ACORN-controlled, leftist third party could have been damaging indeed, and coming clean about his broader work with ACORN might easily have exposed these New Party ties. Because the work of ACORN and the New Party often intersected with Obama's other alliances, honesty about his ties to either could have laid bare the entire network of his leftist political partnerships.

Well, yeah, knowledge of Obama's true beliefs and background would have been a rather severe impediment to Obama's nomination and election. Would the one per centers of the 1% have supported him with all their funds had they known this? (And didn't they know this?)

Obama's early connections are not merely a case of his youthful ignorance or 20 year old stale news, irrelevant to the mature, polished, experienced president Obama is now; this is the real Obama.

Kurtz promises more soon on "Obama's ties to the party, and the relevance of all this to the president's campaign for reelection."

Maybe now the voters will take this into account in November. We can hope that there will be a change.