My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Barack Obama’s “Manchurian Surrogate,” Danielle Allen, surfaces again

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(NEW YORK)(July 10, 2008) Danielle Allen, Senator Barack Obama’s pseudo-“scholar” and campaign hatchet-girl, has surfaced again. This time she wants to repeal the U. S. Constitution to protect Obama. Will wonders never cease? And the moribund print media, in the face of the Washington Post, are using Allen as a “front” to further their own agenda of discrediting the Internet as a competing source of information. Affirmative action, anyone?
For those just joining the controversy, on June 28th Danielle Allen suddenly appeared, “out of the ether” to use the Post’s own phrase, claiming to be a “political expert” and being presented by the Washington Post (WP) as “razor-sharp.” It turned out Allen was a distinctly dull blade. The WP neglected to disclose Allen was an Obama campaign operative.
I expressed surprise at how and why Allen had surfaced. Her sudden appearance looked very suspicious. On further inquiry, I documented she was indeed a suspicious character. Allen and I conducted a very civilized e-mail correspondence, up to a point. When I started asking probing questions about her links to the Obama campaign, she went silent. [I will try to remember to post my unanswered questions to Allen.]
The WP lied about Allen’s status, concealed her agenda, and presented a misleading picture of a legitimate campaign issue: how were voters dealing with Barack Obama’s family roots in the Islamic religion?
Today, July 10th, Allen surfaces again, baring her true agenda and telling us something abut the malign agenda of the Obama campaign: to stamp out anonymous speech on the Internet. Anti-Obama anonymous speech. I realize that affirmative action has deep roots in the academic community. Universities have resisted removing quotas for students and faculty. But do we simply accept unqualified opinions on the pages of the Washington Post, without asking why someone manifestly incompetent is being promoted into the status of a commentator?
Does Allen have any qualifications to be a “scholar” in the political arena, or is she just what I have called her, a “Manchurian Surrogate?”
Allen argues that we should create a new category of speech, “calumny.” What is calumny, and what is not, would be determined by Barack Obama and Obama alone. Obama day-by-day takes on the increasing pretensions of his doppelganger, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. The Big Baba Obama finds any criticism of his views, any analysis of his flip-flops, any challenge to his entitlement to live in the White House and any searching inquiry into his fanciful and fabricated family history, to be verboten. [I am trying to use as any foreign words as possible in this column, because Big Baba has demanded we all become multilingual. And who can argue with Obama? Not the mainstream media (“MSM”). He’s their man.]
There is only one problem with Danielle Allen and the Washington Post. She is utterly and completely incompetent to express intelligent opinions in the political arena, because she has no idea what she is talking about. She is either too stupid or too biased or—heaven forefend—too arrogant to make basic inquiries about the United States Constitution and U. S. Supreme court precedent before popping and tooting. Some scholar, she.
Allen says she wants to outlaw anonymous speech on the Internet as prohibited “calumny.”
There is only one problem with her ridiculous suggestion that we ban anonymous speech. The U. S. Supreme Court has expressly and repeatedly rejected such nonsense. Even the most conservative member of the court, Justice Clarence Thomas, has joined liberals in rejecting Allen’s silly ideas. In McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) Justice Thomas traced and confirmed the long history of anonymous speech in American history. The Supreme Court has repeatedly adhered to McIntyre’s views, see e.g. Watchtower v. Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002); Buckley v. American, 525 U. S. 182 (1999). So if the Supreme Court and justices both right and left have endorsed historical First Amendment protections for anonymous speech, what is Allen’s drivel doing in the Washington Post?
There is a two-fold agenda.
First, the Post is desperate to elect Obama. Every day that Barack Obama stumbles, flip-flops and passes off lies, distortions and misrepresentations as his political “philosophy,” liberals tremble that Obama will fumble and Republicans will snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in November. They rally do live in fear.
Second, the Post has a selfish commercial interest in trying to undermine political speech on the Internet. It was not too long ago that printed newspapers monopolized political speech and dictated the outcomes of elections. Internet speech has repeatedly exposed Obama’s lies, undermined his campaign and revealed the utter mendacity and corruption of the MSM. Who needs competition that that reveals your lies and undermines the credibility of your printed newspaper?
The Obama-is-a-Muslim issue is a classic example of MSM mendacity. The Muslim question is a peripheral matter. But peripheral matters do matter. Concealment of Obama’s childhood Muslim roots became part of his three ring circus of lies, damn lies and statistics. And his bogus rumor-fighting, “truth-telling” web sites. But it was precisely because the MSM tried desperately to cover up Obama’s Islamic family roots that the Muslim question propagated and mushroomed on the internet.
The MSM have met the enemy, and it is them. The harder the MSM’s fought to cover up the simple truths about Obama, by suppressing the facts, concocting complex lies and proffering prevarications, the harder the internet community fought back. In my case I relentlessly fought back. With the truth.
The Post doesn’t like me. That is why the paper devoted a full page to minimizing my writing and elevating Allen to the status of a competing “scholar,” when she is merely just another pampered blossom in the affirmative action hothouse. Allen is full of hot air. I cite Supreme Court case law to document my response to her silly proposal to censor the Internet. Which is more credible? Her hot air or my case law?
Where do we go from here? I urge readers to constantly be on the watch for hidden agendas. When people mysteriously surface out of nowhere, such as Danielle Allen in the Washington Post, ask why? When people such as Allen are promoted as experts in the MSM despite their obvious and complete lack of qualifications and experience, ask why? When Allen is portrayed as a “scholar” when in reality she is an Obama campaign operative, ask why? Ask yourself, why is the Post lying? Why is the Post trying to fool me?
And, finally, ask “What are they afraid of? The truth?”
Good news. We hope to have an update on a publication date for my new book, Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, later today. See
Andy Martin is a legendary Chicago muckraker, author, Internet columnist, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. His columns are also posted at; Andy is the author of Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, being published in July 2008, see MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639 E-MAIL: [NOTE: We frequently correct typographical errors and additions/subtractions on our blogs, where you can find the latest edition of this release.]


Post a Comment

<< Home