The money: A spooky story

I'll be sad, but not too sad, if Obama wins the election, as he now seems likely to do (thanks to the ill-timed financial meltdown). On November 5, the fun starts.

A switch will flip -- listen closely and you'll hear the sound -- and the media will segue from Adoration Mode to Investigative Mode. The Kos Krowd expects America to be transformed into a Whole Foods Elysium, and when Obama does not give them what they want, all of those adoring progs will turn into outraged progs. The nation's citizenry may come to despise O almost as much it dislikes W.

The process of transforming Obama into Public Enemy #1 will take a couple of years, maybe more time, maybe less time. Our job will be to push things to the told ya so stage as soon as possible.

One way to accomplish that goal is to focus on the financing of the campaign now drawing to a close. The whole affair has stunk for a long time, yet few in the mainstream media have bothered to comment on the stench.

A friend once told me that he would watch in fascination, day after day, as Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker grossly oversold time shares at their little holiday camp. My friend would pop open a beer and stare at the TV while while muttering: "Do they really think they can get away with this? In public?"

Eventually, a day of reckoning came for the Bakkers. Eventually, a day of reckoning will come for Obama.

If you want to hear a faint pre-echo of that day, visit Slate. Yes, I said Slate, the web outlet of the Messiah Supporting National Barack Company. The headline tells the story: "Yes, He Can: Barack Obama should be able to disclose his small-dollar donors pretty easily. Indeed he should -- but he won't do it, and his excuses for not doing it are even thinner than the Lightbringer's skin. Slate lists good reasons for making the list available:

Finally, making the list public would rebut McCain's broad and unsubstantiated claims that the list (and the huge sums of money it represents) is shot through with fraud.

Heh heh heh. And we know that those charges cannot possibly be true. Right? Because they are unsubstantiated. Right? If the Obama camp denies an accusation, then the accusation must not have any validity. Denial equals disproof, at least where the Lightbringer is concerned. Right? Right? [Whistles tunelessly] My. It sure is dark. Is that a graveyard we're passing...? [More whistling]

By this point, you've probably heard about the obviously fake names on the Obama donor list. The problem is massive:

Until very recently, the Obama campaign had no safeguards in its online fundraising Web site designed to weed out foreign donors. Instead, its operations appeared to be designed specifically to enhance the flow of illegal money....

In addition to the donations the campaign has disclosed, however, it has taken an unprecedented $218 million from donors whose names it is keeping secret, according to FEC spokesman Robert Biersack.

That money came from individuals who in theory never passed the threshold of $200, the limit the FEC set for public disclosure of a donor’s name and place of residence, so there is no way of knowing how much foreign money could be included in that amount.

Or see here:

You can contribute to Obama’s campaign via his Web site in amounts from $5 to $2,300, in each instance. There appear to be no sensible checks in the submission form, and there’s only a simple note at the bottom of the page that states that an individual can only contribute up to $2,300 per election and that the contribution made on the Web site page “is designated for the general election.”

But, this reminder is virtually meaningless since no wording on the Web site page states that donors must use their real names. Nor does the Obama donation page require that you confirm that you are using your real name.

In other words, in Barack Obama’s world, your decision to obey FEC (Federal Election Commission) laws is entirely voluntary.

If the money is funny, where is it coming from?

Most believe that laundered funds are pouring in from foreign sources. I posit that these donations are coming from wealthy "friends" who entered Obama's orbit when he was quite young.

When Obama went to Occidental College in Los Angeles (a private school for rich kids who don't have the grades for USC), he befriended several affluent foreign students, among them Mohammed Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid. In 1981, as Obama made the transition from Occidental to the more prestigious Columbia, he celebrated by taking a long vacation in faraway lands -- specifically in Pakistan, where he visited with the families of Chandoo and Hamid.

No-one has any idea how Obama -- who claims to have been on food stamps not long before -- managed to afford such a trip. Here is a description of Obama during his Columbia period:

There was a time before Obama wore tailored suits - when his wardrobe consisted of $5 military-surplus khakis and used leather jackets, and he walked the streets of Manhattan for lack of bus fare.

How then, could he pay for that very expensive education at Columbia, not to mention a summer-long world-wide jaunt? (Oxy isn't cheap either.) After graduation, Obama took a $12,000 a year job as a Community Organizer. If he had relied on student loans to pay for Columbia and Oxy, how did he intend to pay back the money?

Strangely, Obama did not mention the Pakistan foray in either of his memoirs. When pressed, his campaign has offered these words of explanation:

In 1981, Obama transferred from Occidental to Columbia. In between, he traveled to Pakistan - a trip that enhanced his foreign policy qualifications, he maintained in a private speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last month. Obama spent “about three weeks” in Pakistan, traveling with Hamid and staying in Karachi with Chandoo’s family, said Bill Burton, Obama’s press secretary.

"Enhanced his foreign policy qualifications" seems a rather grandiose way to describe hanging out with a couple of party-hearty college buds. On the same trip, he also visited Hyderabad, India, home to another pal from Oxy, Vinai Thummalapally.

Oxy, in my view, holds the key to this mystery. During his time there, Obama appears to have made contact with a professor of Politics who was one of the CIA's chief experts on the Soviet Union. This same prof was also, I am told, an associate of Zbigniew Brzenzinski, later to become Obama's foreign policy mentor. (Zbig probably hooked up with Obama at Columbia.)

Could this spooked-up "educator" have paved the way for Obama's trip? Did something more than the travel bug prompt the journey?

It may seem, at first, quite absurd to speculate that the young Hawaii-born Oxy student had been recruited into the American intelligence apparat. The seeming absurdity of that idea lessens when we consider these factors:

1. In 1981, Pakistan was under martial law, and U.S. travel was discouraged or forbidden. At the very least, we can say that a trip to a strife-torn forbidden zone would have constituted quite an adventure for any young man. So why does Obama refuse to mention this adventure in his books?

Think about it: If you were writing an autobiographical work, wouldn't you want to fill it with dramatic incident?

2. At the time, the CIA was offering clandestine support to the anti-Soviet "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan, who counted Osama Bin Laden among their numbers. Much of this support effort was run through Pakistan, using cut-outs.

3. Obama may have held an Indonesian passport, due to his Indonesian stepfather. This factoid is of unhealthy interest to those rightwingers pushing the "Obama as Muslim" smear. I'm not interested in that nonsense. I am interested, however, in the suggestion that a student holding such a passport could get into places where most Americans could not easily go.

A CIA-linked professor would have immediately understood that such a passport offers very interesting possibilities. For obvious reasons, the Agency likes to recruit people who hold multiple passports.

4. According to this right-wing-site,

One of Obama’s hosts in Pakistan is Muhammadian Mian Soomro, Obama’s senior by 11 years, son of a Pakistani politician and himself a politician, who later becomes interim President of Pakistan when Pervez Musharraf resigns in August of 2008. Soomro states that “someone” personally requested that he “watch over” Barack Obama, but Soomro will not name that individual - who today allegedly lives in South America.

It is unknown who financed Obama’s costly 1981 trip.

We have a bit more information from a Pakistani journal, here:

Soomro, presently in the US, his second home, said an American friend had told his father, Ahmadmian Soomro, about Obama's arrival in Pakistan and asked him to look after the American. Soomro's father was the deputy speaker of West Pakistan Assembly and had also later served in the Senate.

Ahmadmian Soomro had also served in banking industry and was considered a pioneer in cooperative banking. By the time Soomro's father had hosted Obama, he was only a college student who went to Pakistan on his way from Indonesia where his mother was working with the Ford Foundation's micro credit finance project. Also Obama's mother was a frequent traveller to Pakistan and according to Time Magazine, she had a little bit proficiency in speaking Urdu.

When Soomro was asked about the person who referred Obama to his father, he said he nowadays lived in some country in South America. He was, however, reluctant to disclose his identity, saying he will have to seek permission from that man before giving his profile.

So Obama's babysitter was "American" -- and, very likely, CIA. If you think that's a presumption, then I must ask you to consider the profile: This mysterious "American" was in Pakistan at a time when the country was off limits, he had befriended a powerful individual, he was later posted to South America, and Soomro now hesitates to mention the man's name. That resume seems very spooky to me -- and I'm not saying that simply because I write on Halloween.

Soomro comes from a famed political family in Sindh. (Chandoo is another Sindhi name.) Soomro has worked for a number of important banks in the Islamic world (including the National Bank of Pakistan, Faysal Islamic Bank of Bahrain and the Muslim Commercial Bank) and for the Bank of America.

Until 1981, the Bank of America partly owned the notorious BCCI, a money launderer's haven founded in Pakistan. American intelligence used BCCI as a conduit for funding the Afghan mujahadeen. However, I do not yet know precisely when Soomro worked for B of A, and thus cannot claim that he has a BCCI background.

Chandoo is now a financial consultant in New York. Hamid works for Pepsi. Both are major donors to the Obama campaign, and Chandoo has been identified as a "bundler" and fundraiser.

I am not painting a grand conspiratorial tableau here; we lack sufficient data. For now, I note only that whatever the apparently ill-to-do Obama was getting up to in 1981, it brought him into contact with the worlds of big money and, yes, international intrigue.

Is it too much to posit that the people he came to know then may be helping him today? Will these connections to the powerful sons of Sindh cause Obama one day to say "Peccavi"?

I have no doubt that many will scoff at me for bringing up these links -- now. Eventually, the scoffing will stop, and the digging will start. In this post, I have listed several places where you may want to begin the process of turning over the topsoil. I will soon list others.

Now THIS guy knows how to carve pumpkins!

With instructions on how to DIY. (Hat tip to Anglachel.)

Nightmare

I'm not making this up. Not two hours ago I awoke from a nightmare in which I was a computer repair guy (a role I sometimes attempt to play in real life, usually with disastrous results). In the dream, every copy of Windows that I installed came free of charge, with one catch: The software included a copy of a hagiographical movie about Barack Obama, filmed in the style of Ben-Hur. No matter how I tried, I could not delete the folder containing this .avi file -- it was un-trashable. Finally, I decided to watch the movie.

The pre-credit sequence depicted the Glorious Nativity, as shepherds and wise men gathered to witness his birth to the Virgin Stanley. After that sequence came the opening credits, supemimposed over this image:


The familiar Milkos Rozsa soundtrack music boomed away throughout all of this.

I woke up in a cold sweat before the credits ended. So far, this has been the scariest Halloween ever.

(Sorry for not completing my post yesterday; I should soon have up an interesting piece about Mr. O's finances. Many things commandeered my attention, including the creation of my costume. I will appear as an Evil Wizard -- and, naturally, I needed a Gandalf-like staff. Mine was made from the branch of a lime tree, and it has a wicked curve. I have no idea how sorcerers managed to create such things in the days before jigsaws and belt-sanders.)

Campaign finance

Quite a few recent posts have focused on Obama's unnerving fundraising tactics. This is an issue that will, I think, outlast the election. In a post later today, I'll discuss an aspect of the matter which has received little attention heretofore, at least in PUMA-friendly realms.

Until then, take a gander at the Washington Post's coverage:

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

The problem with such cards, campaign finance lawyers said, is that they make it impossible to tell whether foreign nationals, donors who have exceeded the limits, government contractors or others who are barred from giving to a federal campaign are making contributions.

Also recall this earlier expose by CBS News: Contributions came from such unlikely donors as Dahsudhu Hdusahfd of Df, Hawaii. Obviously, if the fakers are resorting to random clobbering of the keyboard, they must have run through every false name they could easily concoct.

Which means that there must be a lot of illegal donations.

Which means that the money must be coming from somewhere.

The party left her as it left me...

Democratic speechwriter Wendy Button, who has seen most of the candidates "up close and personal," leaves the party. An excellent read.

Not only has this party belittled working people in this campaign from Joe the Plumber to the bitter comments, it has also been part of tearing down two female candidates. At first, certain Democrats and the press called Senator Clinton “dishonest.” They went after her cleavage. They said her experience as First Lady consisted of having tea parties. There was no outrage over “Bros before Hoes” or “Iron My Shirt.”

But thank God for election 2008. We can talk about the wardrobe and make-up even though most people don’t understand the details about Senator Obama’s plan with Iraq. When he says, “all combat troops,” he’s not talking about all troops—it leaves a residual force of as large as 55,000 indefinitely. That’s not ending the war; that’s half a war.

I can no longer justify what this party has done and can’t dismiss the treatment of women and working people as just part of the new kind of politics. It’s wrong and someone has to say that. And also say that the Democratic Party’s talking points—that Senator John McCain is just four more years of the same and that he’s President Bush—are now just hooker lines that fit a very effective and perhaps wave-winning political argument…doesn’t mean they’re true. After all, he is the only one who’s worked in a bipartisan way on big challenges.

McCain wins!

The Weekly World News has revealed that their Alien mascot, previously in Obama's corner, has endorsed John McCain. The Alien has picked the winner in every election since 1992.

Uncovered photos suggest that in a last ditch effort to help her husband’s failing campaign, Cindy McCain seduced and then blackmailed the Alien for his endorsement...

Ms. McCain’s alien-like good looks and natural blood temperature of 54 degrees Fahrenheit may have proved too much for him to resist...

Speaking as a Photoshop kind-o-guy, I must ask: Where is the light source in this picture?

In other news most Americans don't give a shit about

Nibbles McGee here...

The Department of Veteran's Affairs just admitted that 15% of female veterans experienced sexual trauma during their time in either Iraq or Afghanistan.  

The study, which included 100,000 veterans and covered a six year period, (good sample size, if you ask me) also found that 0.7% of male veterans suffered sexual trauma as well.

A cup of Joe, with a dash of hypocrisy

The urge to smear manifests itself in strange ways.

In 1920, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appeared in English. At first, the notorious anti-Semitic hoax fooled many prominent people -- including, I am sorry to say, Winston Churchill. A year later, London Times correspondent Philip Graves revealed that large chunks of the text were lifted from a nearly-forgotten book called The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, a satire written in 1864 by one Maurice Joly. That work had nothing to do with Jews: Joly had targeted that glorious scalawag, Napoleon III.

How did the anti-Semites react to Graves' work? By smearing Maurice Joly! They scurried through the archives in search of dirt on a sad footnote figure who had committed suicide in the 1870s.

Needless to say, that tactic didn't make a whole lot of sense. Listing Joly's personal shortcomings did not make the Protocols one whit more authentic.

The illogical strategies of fanaticism remain constant. Consider the reaction to Joe the Plumber.

On October 11, 2008, Ohio resident (and former Marine) Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (a.k.a., Joe the Plumber) encountered Barack Obama, who happened to be campaigning in the neighborhood. Approached by the candidate, Joe asked: "I'm getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year. Your new tax plan's going to tax me more, isn't it?"

The Democratic nominee answered that, yes, under his tax plan, Joe would enter a somewhat higher tax bracket if he earned more than $250,000, though the rate would be no worse than in Clinton's day. Joe suggested a flat tax. Obama answered that a flat tax plan would make the situation even worse.

Obama then added: "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

That "spread the wealth" wording gave the McCain camp an opportunity to paint Obama as a socialist.

Let me be clear: I do not consider Obama a socialist, and I disagree with Joe's ideas on taxation. Our country had its most progressive tax structure under Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican. Ike gave this nation prosperity.

At present, fully one-third (soon, perhaps, one-half) of Joe's tax burden goes to pay the interest on the huge amounts of money borrowed by Reagan, Poppy and Dubya. Although the Republicans talked about fiscal responsibility, they ran up massive deficits. Bill Clinton, by contrast, ran a government in the black and began to pay back the debt incurred by his predecessors.

If I were Obama, I would have cited that history in order to explain to Joe why he should blame Republicans for his tax burden. If this country did not have to pay those interest payments, Joe's tax bill would shrink by a third or more. That's the way to cut taxes.

(Although Obama's wording was was not felicitous, my problem with his response to Joe has nothing to do with the Democrat's stated tax policy. I simply do not believe a word that man says on anything. See NAFTA; see FISA; see campaign finance.)

In the paragraphs above, I have outlined what I consider a reasonable response to Joe's questions.

But were the progressives reasonable? Were the Obot faithful reasonable? No, they were not.

They went in for the smear. In so doing, they helped to give Joe a folk hero status which he probably does not deserve.

The progs scried conspiracy in the fact that "Joe" is not Joe the Plumber's real first name. They accused him of not having his plumber's license. (He doesn't need one.) They screamed that he stands no chance of buying that company and entering a higher tax bracket. They dug into the man's records and discovered that he had a lien against him. They rooted and snorted through his personal life. They accused him of voter registration fraud. They called him a racist. I would not be surprised to learn that some prog somewhere accused him of blowing up Building 7.

Needless to say, these inane personal attacks have nothing to do with the question of whether or not this country should adopt a flat tax.

As I watched this nonsense pile up on the Obama-friendly sites, my mind kept flashing back to poor Maurice Joly.

Same shit, different century: As with Mo, so with Joe. The anti-Semites illogically thought that by smearing Joly they could credibilize their beloved forgery. The Obots illogically thought that by smearing Wurzelbacher, they could undo the political damage inflicted by the Lightbringer's poorly-worded response.

The lowest of the low points occurred when Markos Moulitsas allowed a diarist to post Joe's home address on Daily Kos.

Unconscionable. Inexcusable.

My mind raced back to the case of actress and liberal blogger Lydia Cornell, whose address and phone number were published by Ann Coulter. As a result of that deed, Lydia and her family underwent frightening and disgusting forms of harassment. I played a small part in the resultant debate when I wrote a piece in Lydia's defense. As a result of that piece, Lydia and I began an occasional friendly correspondence.

Naturally, the Kos attack on Joe the Plumber prompted me to write to Lydia (now a strong supporter of Obama), asking if she would issue a statement condemning the publication of Joe Wurzelbacher's home address. I reasoned that the progs are more likely to be shamed by her words than by mine, if they are not now beyond shame altogether.

Normally prompt to reply, she ignored my first message. After I sent a somewhat less courteous second message, she begged off from the duty of composing a formal public response, claiming that she had to deal with a family emergency.

So I waited.

A week and a half later, I am still waiting.

Of course, I hope that the emergency has been resolved and that all is well. However, I must note that -- judging from the evidence of her blog -- Lydia has somehow found plenty of time to write at length about politics. Surely, she could have written one small paragraph for public quotation. Something along these lines: "I condemn Daily Kos for publishing the home address of a perceived enemy. That was done to me; it should not be done to anyone."

Lydia could have written those words, or similar words. But she did not.

Apparently, publication of personal information is a very bad thing when the victim is the liberal and lovely Lydia Cornell. When the victim is a Republican guy named Joe -- well that, as Hatlo used to say, is diffo.

Unconscionable. Inexcusable. Hypocritical.

88 I get, but 14...?

I just saw this story an an alleged white supremacist plot to kill Obama and many other black people. (I hesitate to call it a "skinhead" plot, since my own noggin is pretty shiny these days.) Although the scheme doesn't seem to have been very practical, we should thank the BATF for scooping up these young fools before they attempted to do harm. Here's the part that confounded me:

Jim Cavanaugh, special agent in charge of ATF's Nashville field office, said the two men planned to shoot 88 black people and decapitate another 14. The numbers 88 and 14 are symbolic in the white supremacist community.

88 is neo-Nazi slang for "Heil Hitler." H is the eighth letter of the alphabet; thus, 88 = HH. But 14? I can't think of a fascist "hero" with the initials AD. Perhaps 14 refers to N (the fourteenth letter), which stands for Nazi? That's just a guess. Does anyone know for certain?

I can't believe I'm citing Alexander Effing Cockburn

I can't stand Alexander Cockburn. He's the other reason why I quit reading The Nation back in the early '90s, the other being Christopher Hitchens. Cockburn is certainly no friend to the Clinton faction of the Democratic party. Back in the day, he was the first lefty to inject all of the right-wing's Kooky Klinton Konspiracy Krap into the "progressive" memestream.

But...well...what he said.

Whatever drawdown of troops in Iraq that does take place in the event of Obama’s victory will be a brief hiccup amid the blare and thunder of fresh “resolve”. In the event of Obama’s victory, the most immediate consequence overseas will most likely be brusque imperial reassertion. Already, Joe Biden, the shopworn poster boy for Israeli intransigence and Cold War hysteria, is yelping stridently about the new administration’s “mettle” being tested in the first six months by the Russians and their surrogates. Obama is far more hawkish than McCain on Iran.

After eight years of unrelenting assault on constitutional liberties by Bush and Cheney, public and judicial enthusiasm for tyranny has waned. Obama has preferred to stand with Bush and Cheney. In February, seeking a liberal profile in the primaries, Obama stood against warrantless wiretapping. His support for liberty did not survive for long. Five months later, he voted in favour and declared that “the ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool”.

Every politician, good or bad, is an ambitious opportunist. But beneath this topsoil, the ones who make a constructive dent on history have some bedrock of fidelity to some central idea. In Obama’s case, this “idea” is the ultimate distillation of identity politics: the idea of his blackness. Those who claim that if he were white he would be cantering effortlessly into the White House do not understand that without his most salient physical characteristic Obama would be seen as a second-tier senator with unimpressive credentials.

As a political organiser of his own advancement, Obama is a wonder. But I have yet to identify a single uplifting intention to which he has remained constant if it has presented any risk to his progress. We could say that he has not yet had occasion to adjust his relatively decent stances on immigration and labour-law reform. And what of public funding of his campaign? Another commitment made becomes a commitment betrayed. His campaign treasury is a vast hogswallow that, if it had been amassed by a Republican, would be the topic of thunderous liberal complaint.

Obama’s run has been the negation of almost every decent progressive principle, with scarcely a bleat of protest from the progressives seeking to hold him to account. The Michael Moores stay silent. Obama has crooked the knee to bankers and Wall Street, to the oil companies, the coal companies, the nuclear lobby, the big agricultural combines. He is more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain, and has been the most popular of the candidates with Washington lobbyists. He has been fearless in offending progressives, constant in appeasing the powerful.

Emphases added by me.

Where are the apologies?

I've received about ten thousand variants of the same insulting message: The fact that I believed the Ashely Todd story says much more about me than about Obama's supporters.

Actually, I believed her because I simply could not accept that any young woman would blacken her own eye or scar her own face to accomplish such a goal. Moreover, Ashley did not inflict any shallow practice cuts, which are almost invariably made by neophyte self-cutters. I did not know that her personal page indicates that she has a kinky, fetishistic side. Had I known, I would have recognized that she might not be a neophyte.

I might as well confess that I also believed the Tawana Brawley story well after most people had dismissed it. In my private life, I've believed a fair number of "iffy" tales told by women who claimed to have been brutalized and abused. Some of those stories were very iffy, and sometimes my acceptance led to the loss of both money and face. Many women have manipulated many men by appeals to an inner Galahad.

Here's my question: What does it say about Obama supporters that they believed -- still believe, in many cases -- in the "darkened video" hoax promulgated by Markos Moulitsas?

In the Todd case, I offered a corrective story the very next day, as the facts came out. What does it say about Moulitsas that he never offered a correction?

(Don't duck that question, bots.)

Just yesterday, I saw a cartoon published in a leftish free newspaper repeating the well-exploded lie that McCain supporters cry "KILL HIM!" in public at the mention of Obama's name. That story was fabricated by Dana Milbank. Do you think the untalented scrawler of that cartoon will ever publish a corrective?

Have any Obots ever apologized for calling Bill Clinton a racist? For resurrecting every conceivable right-wing anti-Clinton fabrication (e.g.: "Vince Foster! Vince Foster! Vince Foster!")?

Obama will probably win the race. However, victory remains unbagged: According to some polls, McCain is not behind by much, and ten percent of the electorate remains undecided. In the primaries, the undecided voters usually broke against Obama.

The closeness of the race is laughable. It should not be close. Any Democrat should be at least 30 points ahead. Obama has an obscene financial advantage. Gas prices are high. People are losing their jobs. A sitting Republican president has destroyed the economy and has mired the nation in two unwinnable wars. Under these circumstances, the election should end not just in a Democratic victory, but in a 50-state rout.

Forget, for the moment, the morality of the issue: Based on pure fucking tactics, the Obots should have apologized to the Clinton faction of the Democratic party. Instead, the bots continue to hallucinate the existence of a reconciliation which never took place. And Obama has to work like the devil to achieve a victory.

So again I ask: Why didn't Moulitsas apologize for his fabrications?

Speaking of fabrications: As everyone knows, Barack Obama spent twenty years as a member of a church closely associated with Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Obama's friend and mentor, the Reverend Wright, gave an award and fulsome praise to Farrakhan. Obama helped Farrakhan organize the Million Man March in 1995.

Farrakhan is the leading American publisher of the world's most notorious fabrication, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Has Farrakhan ever apologized for promulgating that hoax? Has Obama ever apologized for working with Farrakhan in 1995?

The funniest pro-Obama site on the net (Added note)

You gotta see it: Truth First. Supposedly, the guy behind this site is a history professor in the Central African Republic. Yes, I think this site is on the level. [Or is it? See added note below.] No, I don't think it's a McCain put-up job -- if it is, the GOP is displaying an uncharacteristic wit. One thing's for certain: This stuff is hilarious.

Sample headline: "White Deception, White Lies, White Tricks." Ashley Todd is not just a nutty youngster -- she's part of a planet-wide CONSPIRACY!

Poll question:

Will Barack Obama be allowed to be President of the United States?
-- Yes, he is too popular and visable
-- No. The white man will never allow it

I love this approach: Gain votes by insulting the voters!

A photo is captioned "PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA." Before the election.

The following text demands to be read aloud, in a huge booming voice:

Very soon Barack Obama will be your new President. This is a reality you cannot alter or escape from. It is fact. It is history. It is justice for the world.

Many of you have seen the light and have accepted the truth. And we thank you for your support and aid in electing Barack Obama.

To those who have rejected the truth you have no reason to fear Barack Obama. He is wise and just and he will follow the principals followed by his African forefathers. Barack Obama is the son of Kings and Queens who started human civilization thousands of years ago. Barack Obama remembers his heritage and his obligations to the Truth, Justice and the Future.

Barack Obama understands what is wrong and what needs to be done. Barack Obama has intelligence and vision that has lasted for over a millennium. Barack Obama was born with the appropriate ways of thinking, speaking, and acting and this will inspire you to be liberated for now there is no shackle which can keep you enslaved.

An African Proverb tell us: “Then command the servant, thusly: Make an Elder's staff causing my son to stand in my place I will instruct him through the speech of the listeners and the counsels of the first of the ancients who listened to the divinities. In so doing troubles will be removed from the people.”

Barck Obama is here now to listen, to instruct and will lead you to your new life.

You know, I don't think this guy really gets in the concept of elections. He seems to think that America should be ruled, rather than governed. He seems to believe in divinely-appointed Kings. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he also believes in the concept of re-education camps.

Another post reads thus:

Like Jesus, Obama is a son of Africa who inspires

Betcha didn't know that Galilee was in Africa, didja?

Another headline:

God will damn America if Obama is not elected President

Yes, and the Christmas meteor will destroy your neighborhood if you don't put up any holiday decor. Here's another photo caption:

It is Obama's destiny to rule America

Truth First claims to know Obama personally:

I have helped Senator Obama get in touch with his Africa heritage and as President, he will rule with the wisdom of his African forefathers.

He assures us that Obama will bring about economic justice:

America clearly needs economic justice now more than ever.

Obama is following the Africa principal of UJIMA which is collective work and responsibility.

And that is why Africa is known for the prosperity and justice that America has always lacked.

Of course, Truth First gives credit where credit is due:

Thank you Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan for making Obama's victory possible.

The writer claims to have first met Obama at the Million Man March in 1995. (Did Obama attend?)

In case you ever doubted that black people can be bigots, here we have "The white man's monument to stupidity." Beneath a picture of a neanderthal (all neanderthals were light-complected, it seems), Truth First places this text:

Sometime over a thousand years ago, a white man or white men arrived in Africa. Perhaps he fell into the sea near Europe and clung to a floating log for survival. His simple mind would have been unable to compel him to swim back. His primal instincts and fears told to hang to the log. He hung on for so long that he found himself on an African beach.

And once there he saw for the first time civilized peoples who could speak and write. Who wore clothes and who built magnificent cities and temples that would last for thousands of years. Who practiced medicine and who charted the stars. These civilized Africans were of black skin and today they are still African, where ever they may be.

The white man, slow and unthinking, could not comprehend what they saw. Their fear and uncertainty turned to fear and eventually turned to hate.

The Africans who encountered these white people took pity on them. They fed them, bathe them, gave them shelter and taught them basic language skills and how to use basic tools. And then the Africans returned them to Europe in an African ship and thought no more of these curious and simple white creatures...

The text goes on and on like that. Basically, these white beasts evolved into McCain voters.

Today we see simple and cruel white people who refuse to vote and support Barack Obama; a son of the Kings and Queens of Africa.

Since this comes from a history professor, I am sure that every word can be documented. Strangely, though, Truth First leaves out any reference to the insidious Dr. Yacub.

Truth First claims to be connected with the Obama camapign:

My proudest role in the Obama campaign is that of a liaison representative between Senator Obama and the African Union. The AU will play a key role in reshaping American policy towards Africa in the Obama administration.

The same individual, apparently, keeps a diary on Obama's official website.

There have been many reports of people fainting at rallies for Senator Obama. I have seen this myself on several occasions. For many Americans, Obama represents the first time they have seen or heard an African man speak to them.

"The first time..."?

I think this guy knows as much about American culture as the average American knows about the conjugation of past-tense verbs in Sango.

Added note: Further research suggests that this whole "Truth First" affair may be an elaborate gag. Last May, someone going by the nick left a message on Hugh Hewitt's site. The reference goes to Christopher Hitchens' amusing dissection of Michelle Obama's notorious senior thesis:

It is offensive that a white man...
should be critical of any African woman. It was the white man who raped Africa and stole our knowledge and our people.

http://african-in-america.blogspot.com/

TRUTH FIRST. Obama represents the truth.

Here is the referenced site. The most recent post is dated Septemebr 6:

It has been an interesting, an entertaining, and a laugh-filled journey, but at last it is coming to an end. This is my last post in this blog.

(Of course, the material quoted above appeared after September 6.) Should we take this blog post as an admission of imposture? Frankly, I'm not sure. The author of A-in-A either is Truth First, or he amused himself (for a while) by impersonating the real Truth First, who had earlier made a nuisance of himself in internet realms little-known to yours truly. Right now, I feel as though I walked into this movie mid-way through the seventh reel.

This much I do know: Truth First's diary entries on Obama's site remain proudly visible to the world. Note, for example, this racist post from June:

The power structure in America has always been set up so that a white man would choose another white man to be the Vice President. But Barack Obama has changed that forever.

Sadly, Obama will have to consider choosing a white person for the role. Naturally, this presents a number risks. Is there a white person out there that Obama can trust?

Joke or not, shouldn't a presidential candidate be held accountable for keeping racist material on his website over the course of four months?

The answer: Yes, in the case of McCain; no, in the case of Obama. Why? Because rationalization springs eternal!

(Oh, and before you hasten to inform me: Yes, I am quite aware that the vast, vast majority of black people in Africa don't buy into the racist crap peddled by "Truth First" -- whoever he may be.)

African Press International

So what is the deal with API, the African news bureau located in exotic Scandinavia -- a "news bureau" that uses WordPress as a site host? Days ago, API promised the release "within 24 hours" of the fabled Michelle tapes, the existence of which is denied by the Obama campaign. Time has passed, and still no tapes. The alleged hold-up arises from the illegal nature of the taping, although I don't see how a case could be prosecuted internationally.

API claims that it is represented in this matter by Philip Berg, the lawyer known for attempting to bring a case questioning Obama's citizenship -- a case that was recently dismissed. Berg previously had asked world leaders to arrest George W. Bush for his alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks. According to the White House web site, Mr. Bush is not in jail. I'm beginning to think that if Berg represents you in traffic court, you might end up on death row.

API also presents this fun posting from an an unnamed Indonesian citizen:

Now while Indonesia does not allow children over the age of five to be adopted, so far as I can tell, it does recognize that other countries do so. There is a provision covering that:

A foreign child aged below 21 and unmarried, who is adopted by an Indonesian, will be eligible for Indonesian citizenship if the process does not cause dual citizenship.

Is this true? I have no idea, not being as well-versed in Indonesian adoption law as perhaps I ought to be.

Of course, this claim ties into the API's previous report of the contents of the (as yet unheard) Michelle tape, in which she (allegedly) lets slip that Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. The implication: Obama would have had to forego American citizenship in order to make such an adoption legal. That's a somewhat interesting area of research, and never mind about the API. (Please note that I said interesting, not promising.)

Finally, the euphoniously named Melissa Hagabee claims to have the tapes, which she will sell for the right price. No money, no tapes: she supports Obama, though not enough to overcome her greed. You can reach her at Melissa.Hagabee@gmail.com. (A wry commenter adds that for a cool $10 mill he will supply video of Obama "peeing on a young woman." Cash first, I presume.)

Some of you may now be of the opinion that API is run by a bunch of silly billies. I cannot agree. I am sure that we will have this matter straightened out very soon, especially now that the redoubtable Philip J. Berg is on top of the situation.

Let's look at the history... (Added note)

Ashley Todd, the McCain volunteer who claimed that an assailant carved a B into her face, appears to have mental problems. So why was this story so believable?

Because it fits into a pattern. Among the many comments which I did not allow to be published, YET ANOTHER death threat from an Obot came my way this morning. That makes four. Having been on the receiving end of endless verbal violence from Obama's monstrous mind-controlled zombies, I remain inclined to believe reports of physical violence.

Here's one of the previous threats. (Because of the way Blogger's comment moderation system works, comments disappear into the cyber-void if I do not choose to publish them; I cannot copy, paste and save them.):

Do the species a favor and kill yourself. Better yet, tell me where you live and I'll come do it for you.

This morning's example of the genre involved a reference to firearms. Rather unimaginative, I think. At any rate, it certainly did little to convince me that Obama followers are a peaceful lot.

By the way -- no-one has denied or doubted the story of Rog Coverly, the McCain headquarters manager in Seminole County, Florida whose house was shot up.

I heard from one clown who opined that Ashley's bizarre behavior means that we should toss out all of the "lies" concerning Tony Rezko and the Illinois Combine. This stance reminded me of the case of one Binjamin Wilkomirski, a fantasist who claimed to be a Holocaust survivor. When his fables were punctured (he was born in 1941, in Switzerland, where he stayed throughout his childhood), Holocaust revisionists pointed to the incident as "proof" that all evidence of the genocide was fabricated!

In the aftermath of the Ashley Todd story, many Obots are mimicking those revisionists. They forget that the fantasist was believed because the fantasy fit an all-too-real pattern of behavior.

Wilkomirski fooled so many people precisely because everyone knew what the Nazis had done. Similarly, Ashley proved persuasive because the Obots have an undeniable history of behaving like -- well, like Nazis. One day, the Obama movement will be considered every bit as aberrant and monstrous as the McCarthy movement.

Can we forget that Keith Olbermann explicitly called for Hillary's murder, on the air (anyone who interprets his plain words any other way is a fool) -- and kept his job? Can we forget the other threats against Hillary Clinton? Can we forget the death threats against voices within the PUMA movement? Should we forget the ugliness and threats suffered by Paula Abeles?

Should we forget that when radio host Tavis Smiley received death threats after mildly criticizing Obama? Should we forget that Donna Brazile threatened "There will be blood" if Obama did not get the nomination? Are we to forget this...?

“African-American superdelegates are being targeted, harassed and threatened,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), a superdelegate who has supported Clinton since August. Cleaver said black superdelegates are receiving “nasty letters, phone calls, threats they’ll get an opponent, being called an Uncle Tom.

“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a black lawmaker and Clinton backer, said the intense lobbying for Obama would not alter her vote.

“I’ve gotten threatening mail,” Watson said.

Should we forget what happened to radio host Steve Corbett?

In the thousands of emails I’ve received in the year that “Corbett” has been on the air, I have not received a single death threat - until yesterday.

“We will kill you when Obama become PRESIDENT OF USA.,” the email reads. “You would see!!!”

Most death threats do not result in death.

But some do.

What makes this threat to kill me all the more mysterious is that it appears to have been sent through Barack Obama’s official campaign website – barackobama.com – the website that sends me official announcements of Obama’s campaign comings and goings.

Not once...not once has Barack Obama denounced this repeated pattern of behavior. Indeed, he has encouraged thuggishness in his followers, especially when he gave Hillary the middle finger during a public speech as his sick followers cheered.

I, for one, will not forget the violent language repeatedly encountered on the pro-Obama blogs. In the past, I've been able to give only a sampling of atrocities repeated hourly. Here's a brief sampling of those samplings, offered here as a reminder. (Use the search engine above to find the original posts.)

On the hacking of Sarah Palin's private email account:

"SHE DESERVED IT. What she's buried under her double-wide would be interesting."

From the official Obama website, re: Hillary:

"Just slit her throat, lock her in a car boot, and drive the car into river in West Virginia. Ain’t gonna let no whore screw with the man"

More on Hillary:

She is OFFICIALLY a fucked up human piece of trash.

Re, Bill Clinton, just before his convention speech:

Hey Bill:

FUCK YOU. HARD.

Get the fuck over yourself....

Quit being a sore fucking loser about this and get your shit together. If your loser wife makes even the slightest fucking misstep during her speech tonight, or if you half-ass your way through your speech tomorrow ("Waaahhh, I don't wanna talk about national security!"), the both of you will be on the permanent shit list for the Democratic Party.

You, sir, are unquestionably, A DOUCHEBAG and a criminal one at that.

Bush Clinton crime family must be eradicated.

On the PUMAs:

"They're all crazy cunts,taze them all!!!!!!"

The menses makes the ladies crazy and unhinged. That's why we can never have a woman as president. They'd get all PMS-ish and start a nuclear war.

On Hillary:

The good news is if Clinton wins (steals) the presidency she will likely be assassinated within a week. She is a total lying gas bag hag and deserves to [go to] her maker for what will only be described as a truly karmic moment which will last for all eternity.

"The Clintons shoud have been arrested long ago; Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster's supposed suicide"

"Hillary is a liar and a cunt"

She’s a monster who just won’t die. In fact, she really should just die. You can buy a urinal target with her face on it to express what you really think of her. OMG she’s got claws! She’s crazy. In fact, she’s a lunatic. She’s petty and vindictive and entitled. She’s a washed-up old hag. She’s “everybody’s first wifestanding outside probate court.” She’s a “scolding mother.” She’s shrill… shrill… shrill. She can’t take it when people are mean to her. She’s a “hellish housewife.” She’s Tanya Harding. She CAN’T be President, what with the mood swings and the menses.Any woman who votes for her is voting with her vagina, not her brain. Women only like Hillary because she’s a fellow Vagina-American. And because they vote with their feelings. Frankly, anyone who still thinks we need “feminine role models” should get over it and move on, already. Oh, and men who supporther are castratos in the eunuch chorus

As readers know, there is plenty more where that came from.

By the way... I note that the O-monsters refused to comment on this part of my previous story:

Obama reversed himself on FISA, which means that he wants the power to tap the phones of all opponents. In Missouri, the Obama movement used Sheriffs and prosecutors to put together a "truth squad" to intimidate critics of Barack Obama. Obama makes no secret of his desire to erect a massive "civilian security force." And the RAND Corporation was tasked with considering the best ways to implement a new domestic intelligence agency.

These ingredients -- a cult of personality, new tools of state repression, unfettered snooping -- all point in a dangerous direction. The threat can be reduced to two words: Power and ego.

Added note: Most people are presuming that Ashley Todd has mental health issues. That presumption may be true, although only a professional psychiatrist or psychologist can make the diagnosis. But should we not make the same presumption of mental illness in the case of Dana Milbank, who invented the story that McCain supporters shouted "Kill him" when Sarah Palin mentioned the name of Barack Obama? The Secret Service determined the story to be false, yet the progs continue to treat it as gospel. Yet Milbank continues to earn money, while Ashley has earned only ignominy. Double standard!

"Get in their faces"

In Pittsburgh, a mugger robbed a 20 year old woman named Ashley Todd at an ATM machine. When he noted a McCain bumper sticker on her vehicle, he flew into a rage, punched her, kicked her and carved a B into her face.

Also: In Seminole County, Florida, an unknown assailant shot up the home of Rog Coverly, the manager of the local McCain campaign headquarters.

Coverely said he has taken about 300 calls concerning stolen or vandalized McCain signs in the area.

"It says this campaign is getting vicious," Coverely said.

Coverely said it appears Democrats are becoming more aggressive in the county.

Can we fairly draw any conclusion about the candidate from this attacks -- and from previous incidents, such as the cowardly Obama supporter in New York who beat up an older woman carrying a McCain sign? I think we can.

First, one need not be a professional psychologist to understand that the fanatics have a formed a hallucinatory view of Obama as a salvific figure. He is the projection of all their hopes, the key figure within their soterology. They feel that his election will somehow ameliorate their sense of self-loathing. By physically attacking McCain supporters, attack the parts of themselves that they find intolerable.

I think similar motives drove (for example) the Germans during Krystallnacht. Those who led the atrocities could not bring themselves to admit that they were the aggressors in World War I, that they had lost the war, and that they were responsible for the subsequent mismanagement of their nation's economy. So they projected their sense of self-hatred onto the Eternal Other.

By this point, everyone outside Kossack faithful must admit that Obama has given rise to a Mao-like cult of personality. He has never done anything to rein in these Messianic illusions -- in fact, he has fostered them. That attitude gives him indirect responsibility for the violence committed and threatened by his followers.

I've received death threats, and so have many others. Such is the political climate engineered by Barack Obama. Is anyone surprised that the threats have finally given way to fired shots and physical assaults?

I can only wonder what the future holds. Obama reversed himself on FISA, which means that he wants the power to tap the phones of all opponents. In Missouri, the Obama movement used Sheriffs and prosecutors to put together a "truth squad" to intimidate critics of Barack Obama. Obama makes no secret of his desire to erect a massive "civilian security force." And the RAND Corporation was tasked with considering the best ways to implement a new domestic intelligence agency.

These ingredients -- a cult of personality, new tools of state repression, unfettered snooping -- all point in a dangerous direction. The threat can be reduced to two words: Power and ego.

Were the caucuses unfair? Oh yes.

Obots still pretend that their candidate won the nomination fairly, even though Hillary received the larger number of primary votes. An excellent study by Peniel Cronin makes some troubling observations about the caucus system: See the pdf files available here. Remember, Obama did well in the caucus states -- the primary states went to Hillary.

Primaries have a much, much higher rate of participation. They are state-run and thus have far greater transparency. They can accommodate the disabled, the elderly, and those serving in the military. Caucuses are open to gaming because they cater to relatively small numbers of activists.

Three states -- Texas, Nebraska, and Washington -- have both caucuses and primaries, and in all three states, Hillary did much better in the primaries than in the caucuses. For example:

Nebraska: On February 9, Nebraska held a caucus and only 3.04% of the 1.3 million eligible voters participated. Those 38,571 caucus-goers chose Obama over Clinton 68% to 32% and he won 16 of the 24 pledged delegates. In stark contrast, on May 13th, Nebraska held a primary where nearly 94,000 voters [7.5% of eligible voters] chose Obama by 49.4% to 46.6% ,– only 2.8% instead of the 36% vote-spread recorded in the caucus. If delegates were allocated on the results of the primary instead of the caucus, Obama and Clinton would have received 12 pledged delegates each.

The caucus system badly needs reform. What will Howard Dean do about the situation? Nothing. Why would a burglar favor the installation of surveillance cameras?

Comments

Blogger has changed its commenting system, and people have complained to me that they cannot get through. I'll try to fix the matter.

Obama, race, and Chicago's schools (Added notes by G)

I'm very proud to have published "The ultimate guide to the Ayers controversy," a post I did not write. Some have sneered at this work: "Okay, so Bill Ayers and Barack Obama worked together on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. What does that matter?"

The short answer is this: Truth and falsehood matter. Obama claimed that he barely knew terrorist Bill Ayers. Obama lied. NPR and other major media sources insist that McCain lies in his ads, which link Obama and Ayers. Those ads tell the truth; NPR does not.

But there's more to the story; our "ultimate guide" was incomplete. As noted earlier, the CAC -- the only program that Obama ever actually ran -- was, by its own admission, what the hipsters now call an "epic FAIL." The (mostly black) youngsters involved with this educational improvement program actually fared worse than did their counterparts outside the program.

But the CAC story is not just about failure. It is about race and pseudoscience.

Stanley Kurtz of the National Review has been nosing through the CAC's documents and has uncovered some of the turth of what Obama and Ayers foisted on Chicago's schools. Yes, I know: The National Reivew is a right-wing publication -- and no, I do not share its ideology. But documentation is documentation.

The CAC tossed a ton of money at a pseudoscientific program called the South Shore African Village Collaborative.

The South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC) was very much a part of the Afrocentric "rites of passage movement," a fringe education crusade of the 1990s. SSAVC schools featured "African-Centered" curricula built around "rites of passage" ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies.

To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock claims public education in the United States is shaped by "capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression."

According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values "have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values." American socialization has "proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community," Warfield-Coppock tells us.

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because its Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to "rites of passage," but also because SSAVC's faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the "rites of passage movement." For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

Like other leaders of the rites of passage movement, Carruthers teaches that the true birthplace of world civilization was ancient "Kemet" (Egypt), from which Kemetic philosophy supposedly spread to Africa as a whole. Carruthers and his colleagues believe the values of Kemetic civilization are far superior to the isolating and oppressive, ancient Greek-based values of European and American civilization.

Although academic Egyptologists and anthropologists strongly reject these historical claims, Carruthers dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.

In other words, "history" is whatever imaginary past makes one feel good about oneself. Lots of white people have played the game that way, and so have lots of people within other cultures. Americans of my generation were taught nonsense about Columbus and Custer, while Japanese students learn malarky about the Rape of Nanking. One shouldn't be surprised to see Carruthers fall into the same trap. One should be surprised, however, to see this inanity funded by a foundation run, in no small part, by the man who will probably become our next president.

Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent "ice people," in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black "sun people."

The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers's vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries's opposition between ice people and sun people.

All of this nonsense about "ice people" reminds me of Horbinger's "world ice theory," which had a vogue in pre-Nazi Germany.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge records also indicate that SSAVC educators invited Asa Hilliard, a pioneer of African-centered curricula and a close colleague of Carruthers, to offer a keynote address at yet another Annenberg-funded teacher training session. Hilliard's ties to Wright run still deeper than Carruthers's.

Wright delivered the eulogy at Hilliard's memorial service, with prominent members of ASCAC in the audience. To commemorate Hilliard, a special, two-cover double issue of Wright's Trumpet Newsmagazine was published, with a picture of Hilliard on one side and a picture of Louis Farrakhan on the other (in celebration of a 2007 award Farrakhan received from Wright).

In short, we are dealing with the black separatist movement, which has its own mythology. Some of you may be familiar with the insidious Dr. Yacub and all that rot.

How and why did Annenberg money fall into this morass? Walter Annenberg was rather obnoxiously conservative. He was both friend to and funder of Ronald Reagan, who achieved power through thinly-disguised appeals to racism.

Perhaps the CAC was meant to fail. Perhaps it was intended all along to keep African American youngsters from mastering the basic skills of reading, writing and mathematics.

In my opinion, the black separatist movement was always a deception operation designed to gull black people into accepting segregation and fascism. Never forget that the Nation of Islam, now headed by Louis Farrakhan, was founded in Detroit by a white guy named Ford. Wallace Ford (or Fard, as he styled himself) forbade his followers from engaging in union activity, a stance sure to please another well-known Detroit resident named Ford. Never forget that Henry Ford funded Adolf Hitler -- who was also quite fond of Carruthers-esque pseudohistorical malarky. Never forget that the NOI was pro-Axis during the war. Never forget that the NOI went on to form an alliance with George Lincoln Rockwell during the 1960s. (This -- not Elijah Muhammed's extramarital dalliances -- was the major cause of Malcolm X's falling out with the organization.)

And now you know my long-held conspiracy theory of black separatism.

Added notes: G, the reader who has done such outstanding research into Bill Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, was prompted by the above to add his own observations. His words follow the asterisks.

* * *

I don't think that the CAC was meant to fail (perhaps destined to fail - given what it was being used for - but not intended to fail). Two core points:

1. Ayers can 'sound good'. He can write in a compelling fashion - analytical thought will poke gaping holes in much of his reasoning - but it sounds good. And most human decision-making, including decisions on grant funding, is based on impression. I myself spend a great deal of my time writing grant applications (in the biological sciences). Much of it is about constructing an appealing advertisement. I myself am not that great at it - I'm too fact and detail oriented, and I tend to be averse to flamboyant language. But I work with a collaborator who's really good at it. Whether a scientific grant gets funded depends as much if not more on spin='quality of the ad' than on its scientific merit. Ayers is great at self-promoting/advertising, and he would not have been fully explicit about some of his more radical objectives in the proposal to Annenberg. So Annenberg might have liked how the grant proposal sounded. Also, Annenberg was being advised (on whom to give funds to) by Vartan Gregorian, and Ayers was communicating with Gregorian about how to sculpt the grant application.

As a side note - the CAC was much more Ayers' baby than most people realize. I'm not going to go through all the details here (it would be too long a post), but I'll just point out a couple of things:

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0b06.pdf page 11. Ayers:

'When Annenberg announced that he was gonna give out half a billion dollars, I heard it on the radio at six in the morning. At seven in the morning, I had talked to Anne and Warren, and the three of us met for lunch that day. We began to plot a strategy. The strategy was to pull together the old Chicago school reform coalition, and to try to figure out what we could do at this juncture, [whether] we could get some of that money to Chicago, which we assumed we could.'

http://sonatabio.com/CAC/CAC-application.pdf
The grant was submitted to Annenberg under the names of William Ayers and Anne Hallett ('on behalf of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative').

Ayers remained the dominant figure - throughout the drafting of the grant, the formalization of the Chicago School Reform Collaborative (the CAC operations arm, which Ayers co-chaired 1995-2000), etc.

Ayers' office was also the location of the official CAC office.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=2907

Basically, the whole thing was his baby (not that he had complete control - there were many others involved - but it was his brainchild and he was apparently the dominant influence).

2. The 'local school control' agenda that the CAC was intended to fund is backed by a curious mixture of people. Specifically, it's backed by the political Right, and by only very particular elements of the Left (e.g. Ayers).

It's generally opposed by most of the Left (as being undemocratic and anti-union). In the case of Chicago, it was opposed by Jessie Jackson's Operation PUSH, etc. I believe that the only predominantly African-American organization supporting 'local school control' (at least in the late 1980's in Chicago, when it was initially being promoted) was the Developing Communities Project (of which Obama was director).

For the political Right, the embrace of 'local school control' fits with their general ideological desire for states rights, local control, less government, etc., as well as their anti-union sentiment. So it's not too surprising that Annenberg would have funded a proposal designed to promote such a system.

For Ayers - the 'local school control' model is embraced because of its analogies with the 'local councils' found Cuba and other such Autocratic Left regimes.
[Think caucuses versus primaries, with caucuses as examplars of what Ayers extolls as 'participatory democracy'].

One additional thing I'll mention (given the 7:55 PM comment someone posted) - Walter Annenberg didn't die until 2002 (e.g. see Wikipedia), and the CAC grant was initiated in 1995.

ACORN

I did not want to admit it, but facts are facts: ACORN has become a criminal organization. The following video comes from CNN, which many consider biased in favor of Obama:



Why did the Obama campaign give $836,000 to ACORN using fraudulent claims that the organization was providing "sound system" services? How can anyone possibly justify that behavior as being on the up-and-up?

On the so-called "Fight the Smears" section of Obama's web site the following claims were made:

The Obama Campaign claims that Barack was never an ACORN trainer and that he was not associated with ACORN in 1992:

• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer.
• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity.
• Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992

Just how factual are these "facts"?

"Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity." That's a lie; it is well-known that Obama represented ACORN in a legal case. What is less well-known is this:

"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."

So: ACORN was indeed part of Project VOTE. Strike down Fact 3. Obama represented ACORN as a lawyer and led training sessions. Strike down Fact 2. Those training sessions also count as a strike against Fact 1.

I'm particularly bothered by Brad Friedman's continuing defense of ACORN. The offenses outlined in CNN's investigation speak to a systemic attempt to game the election. I once accepted the excuse that individual ACORN volunteers, motivated by financial gain, sent in improper registrations. But that explanation no longer works.

Brad asks: "Perhaps the ACORN 'Voter Fraud' is Hiding with the WMD?..."

No, Brad -- ACORN's criminality is as obvious as your partisanship. (Note that the oft-cited election fraud expert refuses to addresses any of the problems outlined in CNN's investigation.) And please spare us your oft-heard declaration that membership in the Green party places you above the Democratic-Republican fray. Let's deal in facts, Brad: You make money from your site, and your readers are mostly progs. If you stop telling them what they want to hear, you'll no longer be given exposure in The Guardian or on Air America. You won't be asked to fill in for the vile Randi Rhodes. Your progressive readers will desert you. You will no longer be able to make a career of your cause. You'll have to start filling out employment applications at the many fast food restaurants around Hollywood. That's why you never expressed on your site the disgust you felt when the Kossacks engaged in hyperbolic bashing of Hillary Clinton.

Josh Marshall

Bob Somerby and Anglachel ask: What the hell happened to Josh Marshall?

Actually, a lot of people have asked that question in recent times. Marshall's transformation into a Limbaugh-esque propagandist is the saddest and most confounding spectacle to emerge from this sad and confounding election.

Arianna's antics did not surprise me, since I never viewed her conversion as genuine. She's a libertarian, now and forever. Moulitsas is also a libertarian at heart -- moreover, he's a relatively young man given too much power too quickly. It was inevitable that he would one day transform Daily Kos into a left-ish Free Republic. He's a thug, switchblade at the ready as he leads his swaggering posse through the criminal night. I don't know enough about Skinner to judge the fellow (frankly, I can't even recall his first name at the moment), but he's young, and I've reached the never-trust-anyone-under-40 stage of life.

Josh Marshall always struck me as older than his years -- calm, reasoned, reflective, willing to weigh conflicting views. He is -- or rather, was -- a classic liberal, in the "on one hand this, on the other hand that" sense of the term.

Now he is something else entirely. Anglachel suspects that the Devil has made his overtures. The chink of the bag of gold. The addictive glare of the TV lights. That Tartini trill. It's all very hypnotic.

I don't think Somerby is wrong on any of these counts, I would simply push him further. He keeps hinting at it when he talks about the broken soul of emerging "progressive" culture, insults from transparent strivers, the frantic desire to become a Very Serious Person, the pseudo-left (a phrase Somerby has been using for several days), shape-shifting the recent past, and so forth. His focus is on the blogosphere and the straightforward lies of people like Marshall, Yglesias, Markos, Kevin Drum, Hamsher, Huffington, Atrios, Steve Benen, and Digby, the people who started exactly in the same place as Somerby (well, not Arianna) and who all of them, every last lying scumbag one, found out that the way to get invited onto TV, interviewed in big name news papers, sucked up to by political campaigns, was to join in the defamation of the Clinton/Gore administration.

It is more important to this group of the wanna-be punditocracy to be seen beating up that administration than to be critical of any Republican one.

This is why we have the weird opposition to McCain and Palin, almost identical to the trashing of Hillary, focusing on racism and social status to the exclusion of substance. It can work if you have already decided that the poor and working class as such are not worthy of political representation.

Somerby skewers Marshall for making the inane claim that McCain has run the dirtiest campaign since the Nixon era. I've noticed that NPR and some mainstream voices have taken cues from Marshall -- especially when it comes to finding "lies" in McCain ads. Most of these "lies" are actually nothing of the sort. For example, the Ayers/Obama linkage -- which TPM pooh-poohs -- is quite real, as our correspondent G documents at length several posts down.

I'd also note that Marshall and other progressives have severely misrepresented the sex ed bill which featured in McCain's ads. The actual bill includes these words (never quoted by any TPM story):

Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

Fire up Google and see for yourself what happens when you type in that quote along with the phrase "Talking Points Memo."

Why does Josh Marshall keep the actual text of the bill a secret from his readers? Because Marshall is no longer an honest man. The pundit is now a propagandist. Watch it happen: For the rest of his life -- 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024 and beyond -- he will, with crimson in cheek and lightning in his eyes, offer hyperbolic pronouncements that the latest Republican campaign is the filthiest since Nixon's: I thought that I had seen disgusting tactics before, but never until now, never until NOW... And each and every time he says it, he'll be as predictable as a gas bill and as credible as Lord Haw-Haw.

Then again, perhaps Marshall does not intend to run a website forever. Perhaps Marshall sees the promise of an administration post: Josh Marshall as Josh Liman. Let's hope it happens. I'd prefer for him to receive a paycheck from Obama. I would prefer for the fact of payment to be established beyond question.

Perhaps we were always wrong to view Marshall as a man of liberal values, as opposed to partisan opportunism. His history is more complex than many think. He was slow to turn against the Iraq war. He always remained supportive of Andrew Sullivan, even when Sullivan supported W. A reader informs me that Marshall once was just as fanatical as any FOX newsman in his zeal to "get" congressman Gary Condit.

Somerby:

The biggest mistake we’ve made in ten years was letting Josh slide in 2002, when he began to lie in your faces about the shape of that campaign. (For one small bit of exposition, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 12/19/02. We were far too polite back then, when this could have been “nipped in the bud.”) But make no mistake—Josh has played for you for many years on this score. In the process, he is emerging as the Sully of the pseudo-left. It’s long past time for this weird, creepy man to pack his satchel and go.

At any rate, will someone please stop poor Josh Marshall before he boo-hoos, blubbers and cries defending Bush the elder again? Josh! George Bush 41 ran a scuzzball campaign! It was the start of modern GOP campaign culture. Our advice: Go away and grow some stones.

The link goes to this Marshall quote:

MARSHALL (8/10/02): I think deep down most reporters just have contempt for Al Gore. I don’t even think it’s dislike. It’s more like a disdain and contempt...And this was, you know, a year-and-a-half before the election, I think you could say this. This wasn’t something that happened because he ran a bad campaign. If he did, it was something that predated it.

Marshall here implies, but does not actually admit, his membership in that pack of Gore-haters.

Hmmm. Contempt for Al Gore in the 2000 election. How well did that attitude work out for the country?

Now Marshall -- like others within the reportorial elite that once held Al Gore in such contempt -- makes no secret of his love for all things Obama, and his hatred of all things Clinton.

History made the Gore-haters look foolish. History will have an even harsher judgment of the journalists and bloggers who demonized Hillary and gave us the cult of the Lightbringer.

Strange days, indeed...

I presume you've seen Larry Johnson's latest on the topic of the fabled "Whitey" tape:

Two of these sources are Democrats and are journalists. They were not trying to sabotage the Obama campaign. They were passing on something they believed to be true.

Johnson does not name the sources in public; although we know that he refers to Sy Hersh and David Brock. (Brock may have received the info from an associate at Media Matters.) I've written to Brock but received no reply. The lack of a reply is, in and of itself, interesting. I've not yet tried to contact Hersh.

Johnson also says that his third source, a Republican friend (otherwise identified as a "CIA buddy"), has said that McCain nixed the use of the tape. Why on earth would he do such a thing?

As I see it, we are left with two options...

1. The tape never existed. The entire matter was a deception gambit, initiated for unknown purposes. There is some evidence to suggest that the whole thing began with Brock's operation. If so, then perhaps the intent was to tempt Brock into saying something in public that would harm his credibility.

2. The Republicans want to throw the election -- hence their refusal to release evidence that might change the game.

One can make a pretty good case for the second proposition. Even if you are an O-man fanatic, you gotta admit: This is not your usual Republican campaign season. I mean, where are the 527s? Why aren't we seeing nonstop commercials pushing Rezko, Rezko, Rezko?

Speaking of telling silences: I wrote to someone connected closely to the lady L, as mentioned in the last post. No response. No outrage. No shouts of "How dare you!" or "Who the hell put that idea into your head, you sleazeball?"

And as long as we're talking about Joltin' Joe Biden...

Something's comin', something bad... I'm sure you've already seen this...

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right."

But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us."

I don't think I've ever heard such a bizarre prediction from a Vice Presidential candidate. This statement does not strike me as blue-sky conjecture. Something is up. Something specific. Something that will harm or destroy the popularity of a new Obama presidency.

Biden pretty much admits that Obama's response will piss off the Democratic base. I'm thinking military action against Iran after a terror strike on U.S. soil. That's just a guess.

In all likelihood, the Republicans also know what this "something" is. Maybe that's why the Republicans aren't even trying to win this thing. Better it should happen on the Democrats' watch.

At any rate, it'll be cute to see the Kossack reaction. First, they will twist their principles into knots as they try to rationalize the actions of their Messiah. Then they will have a collective moment of "dark samsara," at which time they will screech "You were right all along, my PUMA friends, right all along..."

And we will say: "I know thee not. Hie thee hence into the Great Orange Void, nevermore to be heard of again."

On the other hand, when the progs turn against Obi, I might start feeling sympathetic toward the guy. Call it the persnicketiness principle.