Democrat racism

Donald Douglas exposes the hypocritical attitude of the Democrat party for all to see:

Just contemplate the loaded racism in that passage: Essentially, folks see Kwame Kilpatrick as a big, black threatening "nigga" (used here non-pejoratively, in the hip-hop sense, but perhaps differently by the working-class whites identified in the Politico).

I swear, one has to be a contortionist to make sense of Democratic Party racial politics.

I mean, think about it: What's the difference between Kwame Kilpatrick and Barack Obama?

Kilpatrick's headed for jail, sure, but besides Obama's interracial background, they're both dishonest big-city Democratic Party politicians who took advantage of insider connections and hardball mob-methods to climb the rungs of power. Of course, Obama's smarter, more attractive, and he's hasn't been caught in flagrant extramarital affairs (or drug-induced homesexual romps with two-bit political groupies). Other than that, Antoin Rezko, Bill Ayers and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and the spiritural guidance of Reverend "God Damn America" Jeremiah Wright ought to rate up there - at least in surreptitious subterranean sleaze - with Kilpatrick's one-party urban Democratic machine corruption and criminal prosecution.

This is much of today's Democratic Party, not to mention the bigoted rednecks, and they're all headed to the White House upon a possible Obama win on November 4th.

Also, Jammie-Wearing Fool:

So refreshing to see the Democrats openly admit they're racist scumbags.

Yes, because it's OK for them to be racist, so long as they project their racism upon Republicans with their incessant cries of racism. Naturally, it's fine if 105% of blacks (with ACORN's help, naturally) vote for Obama. We can't call that racist, because we'd be racist for pointing that out.

Experts at the racial, racist double standard, as always.

The jihadist vote

A must-read expose by Frank Gaffney of the Washington Times, taking a hard look at Barack Obama's radical Islamist/terrorist connections, and the money they are pouring into his campaign.

Last week, Barack Obama's campaign was burned yet again for its dalliance with Islamists - those who embrace Islam's repressive theo-political-legal code known as Shariah and who are working for its triumph in the West in general and the United States in particular. The episode is but the latest indication that the Democratic candidate hopes to win the White House by relying, in part, on the Jihadist vote.

NBC reported Thursday that the Obama campaign's latest radical "Muslim outreach coordinator," Mouha Husaini, met last month in one of Washington's Northern Virginia suburbs - the heart of what has been dubbed the "Wahhabi Corridor" - with her predecessor, Mazen Asbahi (who had to resign this summer due to his own associations with Shariah). Even more problematic was the presence at the Springfield event of two prominent Muslim Brotherhood operatives: Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society (MAS) and Nihad Awad of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

As I pointed out in a debate on Tuesday (for a transcript, go to http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1447/pub_detail.asp) with a man associated with both organizations and arguably the Bush administration's senior Muslim official, Suhail Khan, the Brotherhood is an instrument the Islamists have been using to foster a Fifth Column in America. Its stated purpose in this country is to "destroy Western civilization from within."

Read the whole thing. He does not specifically mention the Sedky -> bin Mahfouz -> Wambu -> Vera Baker channel - the article is, sadly, short on specific insights of this nature - but may provide a "broader" overview of the Obama fundraising machine. Gaffney claims that $30-100 million may have come from areas of heavy Islamist activity. I don't know what sources he is using for his article, but I suspect that - when you include "off the books" financing to ACORN and other front groups - the true figure is higher by at least a factor of 5.

Obama, terror, and the banking crisis, part 2 - the money trail, and reasons why

PREFACE: It appears that the FBI is investigating ACORN. If they are willing to follow the money trail, we may soon have definitive answers where right now we have only tantalizing hints. If not - if they only investigate ACORN's ongoing vote fraud schemes, and fail to pursue the networks that finance them, it will be like tearing up a weed at the stem, while leaving the root system in place. You will not see it, as it lies beneath the surface, but it will soon generate new leaves and flowers, and move once more to choke the Garden of our Democracy.

Read Part 1: The Players.

Yesterday, I sketched the major players in this ongoing, and highly effective plan, to influence the American election with foreign money. Continuing the weed analogy, what we are looking at here is merely one root of the entire system - there are potentially more international money men feeding the system, and potentially more channels by which the money is brought into the US. The one here may be the biggest, as it is always easiest to see the biggest root, and pulling it up and exposing it may be enough to kill the weed completely, or to expose the larger web of tendrils below.

How does this plan work?

Simply, this is how it is believed to work: Cherif Sedky, using the blanket protection of attorney-client privilege, is the liaison between representatives of the Obama campaign and the wealthy Saudi financier Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz. This is the channel through which requests are made: as bin Mahfouz is under close watch by US and allied governments, no money is ever passed through this channel. "Khalid Ganzal", real name "Charlie" Wambu, served as the contact between bin Mahfouz and the front company Baker-Wambu & Associates, which is composed of two women: Muthoni Wambu, a confident of the Biden campaign (current role in the Obama/Biden campaign undetermined), and Vera Baker, former Finance Director of the Obama Senate campaign, now stationed in Martinique, a Caribbean island amid a plethora of tax havens and grey market offshore banking concerns. The money flows from bin Mahfouz, likely using "Charlie" Wambu as a courier, to Vera Baker in the Caribbean, where the money is laundered to the Obama campaign. The pre-existing Baker/Wambu partnership likely explains Obama's choice of Joe Biden over the considerably more popular Hillary Clinton - one can imagine Clinton's rage were she to discover the methods that Obama used to stop her primary campaign. Biden, through Wambu, has likely been aware of this, if not actively involved, for some time.

How is the money brought into the US?

There are several methods. Current campaign finance law does not require contributions under $100 to be registered with the FEC; therefore, it would be simple for a person to send a series of small donations, routed through a hundred parallel dummy bank accounts, directly to the Obama campaign. This is how the "official" campaign coffers are kept full.

There are also "off the books" methods, by which a substantial sum of money can be sent to an organization working in concert with, but not officially affiliated with, the Obama campaign. One organization which fits this bill is ACORN. Nine years ago, ACORN was, supposedly without the knowledge of its board of directors, quietly funneling $1 million of "charity" into private accounts. This was, like the endless stream of proven voter fraud cases we have seen over the last 2 election cycles, dismissed as the work of a rogue "bad apple", but a tree which gives so many "bad apples" clearly has gone rotten to its core. ACORN can use money to pay its oh-so upstanding "volunteers", to quietly pay off people who may get too close to exposing their misdeeds, to pass quietly to other "grassroots" Leftist organizations, or for any other purpose imaginable. After years of practice, and using methods pioneered by Islamic terrorist groups, they are very, very good at making money vanish.

The following gloss is my own interpretation of what it means.
What is the purpose? (Besides winning the election, of course)?

People have done great work exposing the formative connections between Bill Ayers and the young Barack Obama. This is useful in demonstrating who Obama considers a "fellow traveler", but I believe it would be a mistake to think he has any particular connection to the ambitious, and now extremely powerful, Senator Obama. Ayers was a minor player in Chicago regional politics, a distinctly second-rate theorist, and, as an "activist" terrorist with the Weather Underground, an admitted failure. No longer useful, never especially gifted, and without any concrete political accomplishments - it is likely that Obama, steeped in the far more rigorous theory of "community organizing" Machiavelli Saul Alinsky, as well as the intellectual/academic Marxist tradition of the past century, views Ayers with contempt. Similarly, I would speculate, Rev. Wright - once useful as a player on the, insular, small stage of Chicago, now an embarrassment, and worse - an uninteresting embarrassment.

To an true acolyte of Alinsky, nothing matters except results, and the goal is to bring about a post-national, socialist "utopia" - a protean one important scholar has dubbed, quite aptly, Transnational Progressivism. A true acolyte of Marx and Engels understands that the first step in a class revolution is to "win the battle of democracy", for that will start the inexorable historical processes which will cause capitalism, and then the nation-state itself, to "whither away". Progressives, Left-liberals, and Leftists may not be able to understand what these brilliant, yet profoundly alienated and immoral, thinkers were proposing - one learns to appreciate early on the limited learning and mental capacity of the Leftist foot soldier. Yet they, whatever their particular, possibly modest, political program, are entranced by this vision. Imagine no possessions ... Imagine there's no country ... They will follow One who leads.

How to bring them, and others even less aware, fully to your side? Crisis. To "heighten the contradictions" is the revolutionary's goal, and make no mistake, this is a revolution. In the 90's, during ACORN's formative years, this was codified as the "Cloward-Piven Strategy", bringing the system into crisis by flooding the welfare roles, and then swooping in with a Socialist/Communist "solution". In the midst of the current financial crisis (brought about, intentionally or otherwise, by government intervention in the free market to flood the market with worthless, especially minority and immigrant, mortgages, with the help of ACORN), to a "Progressive Shock Doctrine". An excellent overview is here.

Tomorrow - part 3: Errata: sources and methods, loose ends tied up, and work needed in the coming weeks. There is precious little time. Comments welcome, as always.

Obama, terror, and the banking crisis, part 1 - the players

Based on information from a reliable source in the news media, I will be devoting the next several days to a story - bad for Obama, possibly very bad - which her management decided, for reasons they declined to share, not to run on the air. I apologize for the piecemeal way this story is coming together, but I am going to take the time to verify this information as much as I can. I'd rather do it right than do quickly and have it get nit-picked by the Obamazombies. This is potentially a campaign-ending (and prison starting!) story for Obama, although there are some pieces of the puzzle - some documentary evidence - still missing. The story involves a scheme by the Obama campaign to launder unknown amounts of cash through front companies and untraceable foreign channels. Let's meet the cast of characters, starting at the beginning, with Cherif Sedky.

===========================================

Who is Cherif Sedky?

A relatively recent entrant into the Obama inner circle - indeed, a relatively recent entrant into Democrat party politics. Until this year, in fact when he stopped donating to Republican candidates, and began donating to Barack Obama - in the primary and general election - as well as the liberal PAC MoveOn.org. After maxing out his contributions to Obama's primary campaign, he has not officially donated to the campaign since March, stopping at $500. His campaign contribution forms list him as a "Self employed/Private Investor". His day job is representing, in court and in the media, Saudi terrorist financier Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz.

Who is Khalid Bin Mahfouz?

Khalid Bin Mahfouz is one of the "main individual sponsors of terrorism", a major player in the BCCI scandal which brought high finance into terrorist financing, the sale of nuclear technology to rouge regimes, and illegal immigration. He is also one of the 250 richest men in the world. He is rich enough that, despite having a wife and 3 children, he can still keep a 20-something male lover situated in a lavish apartment block in downtown London. The homosexual lover of the terrorist financier goes by the name Khalid Ganzal.

Who is Khalid Ganzal?

Up until this point, everything I have told you is easily verifiable by a trip to your public library or a few hours on the internet. There are no officialrecords of a "Khalid Ganzal" living in the London area. So here the trail runs dry - or would, but for some good old-fashioned investigative journalism. According to multiple sources, the person identified as "Khalid Ganzal" in news reports is not named Khalid Ganzal, and is not even of Arab ancestry. His real name is Chinua "Charley" Wambu, a US citizen of mixed-race ancestry, a former male prostitute, and the half-brother of Muthoni Wambu, a lawyer well-connected with the Biden campaign, and a founder of Baker-Wambu & Associates, a Democratic fundraising firm with no web presence and a non-existent address. The Baker in Baker-Wambu is one Vera Baker.

Who is Vera Baker?

I'll let Hillbuzz answer that question:

Some people in Chicago claim she was Obama’s Finance Director for his 2004 Senate campaign. FEC Senate campaign records show she was paid a pretty penny as “Finance Director”.

However, people familiar with Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign say Claire Serdiuk was Obama’s Finance Director. Looking through everything we can see online for that 2004 campaign, Claire Serdiuk is consistently listed as the Finance Director - because that’s what she was.

There’s no mention of Vera Baker…but Vera Baker was paid as the “Finance Director” too.

And then, suddenly, Vera Baker was relocated to New York.

Right around the time Michelle Obama got incredibly angry about something. We know it was hard to tell, because Michelle’s angry about something on a good day…but this was EXTRA angry.

And then, even more suddenly, Vera Baker was relocated to the island of Martinique, where she remains.

Martinique is becoming a popular place for Americans, Europeans, and now Middle Easterners to do banking away from the watchful eyes of law enforcement. Lots of people have speculated about a possible affair between Barack Obama and Vera Baker as the cause of Michelle's ire, but the truth is considerably more sordid. Baker, it is strongly suspected (alas, not proven: here we have some third-hand reports, but no documents) was laundering donations from foreign nationals too close to the Obama campaign, and she needed to be moved away from the watchful eyes of the FEC and Obama's political opponents. His 2004 race was a blow-out, so there was little scrutiny of these moves, but already Barry and Michele were developing channels for bringing unprecedented, unregulated foreign money into a national Presidential campaign.

======================================

OK, I need to make some more phone calls. If anybody has any information which might be relevant here, let me know. Tomorrow - following the money: the path through ACORN.

Man of Letters

An email sent to Jonah Goldberg, author of the fascinating "Liberal Fascism":

Sir,

I've just finished your book, "Liberal Fascism", as part of a rather gluttonous burst of reading, and I must say that LF is the most absorbing and challenging read I've had in a year or more. I'm still struggling with it somewhat - my feeling is that your strengths lie in your scholarship and your penetrating and unconventional analysis, and that your (understandable) urge to engage in playful polemic creates a tension in the text that is often left unresolved in a way that is often unsatisfying. That said, I think I need to reread it at least once more before I make any final judgments, and I think that the substance of your argument more than makes up for any stylistic quibbles I might have.

Your book brings to mind a number of other works - what I found most stimulating about your argument was your ability to place novel insights (novel to me, at least!) within a framework of familiar and canonical Western thought, illuminating threads in other works which I had not previously suspected to be there. Hume comes to mind repeatedly, particularly his "Of Superstition and Enthusiasm", which may as well have been written yesterday for its applicability to the modern Left-liberal attitude towards scepticism of PC orthodoxy, or indeed any other form of free conservative inquiry. In a similar vein, LF returned - albeit obliquely - to arguments put forward by Arthur Herman (who, if I am not mistaken, also writes occasionally for National Review) in his magisterial "The Idea of Decline in Western History", which follows the romantic/apocalyptic motif along a path which intersects repeatedly with the foundational ideas and figures of both fascism and modern Left-liberalism. It is obviously not a coincidence: fascism is a notoriously protean idea, capable of taking all sorts of guises, but one essential animating idea we always find is the notion of modern decadence, and decline from an earlier Golden Age. If you have not read it, do yourself that favor; if you have, I am sure you agree.

I bring this up in order to pass along this passage from Herman's book, about the radical "black nationalist" liberal idol Marcus Garvey, which I think helps to place his heirs - especially a certain Rev. Wright, intimate of candidate Obama, currently keeping an unusually low profile:

Garvey told a reporter that he represented the future of black nationalism, while [Garvey's rival, W. E. B.] Du Bois represented the past. That future, he believed, hinged on what he was convinced would be the future of twentieth-century politics: mass politics, mass propaganda, and the power of the disciplined and mobilized nation. That conviction drew him to the figure of Benito Mussolini. Garvey expressed great admiration for the Italian dictator until he invaded Ethiopia in 1936. He even claimed that far from his movement's being patterned after Mussolini's Blackshirts, the influence flowed the other way around: "When we had 100,000 men and were training children, Mussolini was still unknown." [...]

He reserved the same admiration for Adolf Hitler. For Garvey, Jews were the symbol of the "lying, wheedling" West, and Jewish international finance was a power that "can destroy men, organizations, and nations." [...] Anti-Semitism and the appeal of modern mass movements also led him to seek a partner in an unusual quarter: the Klu Klux Klan. To the stunned outrage of Du Bois, the NAACP, and virtually every other Negro leader, Garvey arranged a meeting with the KKK's Grand Dragon. Both agreed that a black exodus from the United States would protect the purity of both races. In short, racial pessimism formed a bridge between these two forms of radical nationalism, one black and the other white. -- Herman, pp. 213-214

Today, Obamaphiles fervently hope that he has the spirit of Garvey with him (e.g.: http://hnn.us/articles/47818.html , countless others). I quite suspect they are right about that, as evinced by the company he keeps. Anyway, your book is a delicious read, and I thank you for your time, and would be more than honored if you choose to quote this email at whatever length you wish. Enough out of me: I need to re-read "Liberal Fascism", and you need to get busy on the sequel. Please.

Yours,
"Willmoore Kendall"
http://conaffredux.blogspot.com/

Taking off the gloves

The kind of bile we are up against:





And much, much more here. This is the filth being peddled by the Obama campaign and its water-carrying surrogates, and this is the filth which will soon be fed to the unwitting public by the uniformly pro-Obama MSM. However, the only person the MSM deems to be 'ugly' is Sarah Palin, for daring to broach the subject of Barack Obama's long and intimate association with terrorists and anti-American clerics. We are on the precipice.

In this climate, it becomes all the more critical that people who love their country, and hold true to conservative values, not make an enemy of moral clarity. I see too many conservatives - I restrain myself to not naming names - deluding themselves into believing that we are winning this fight. We are not. It is almost certain that Republicans will lose further seats in the House and Senate, and it is more likely than not that Barack Obama will be our next President.

I believe these people delude themselves in order to deflect from themselves the responsibility to speak the unpleasant truth. Barack Obama and the Democrat base - academia, Hollywood, and the rest of the elite self-declared Leftist bien pessant - are in league with terrorists, and the MSM has all but joined them. We do not have time to be coy or indirect in our charges, or to observe the precious social conventions which the MSM insists that conservatives - and conservatives alone - observe. The American people must understand the clear choice before them: between those who hold and will defend American values and freedoms, and those who have sympathy for the terrorists.

There will be those who seek to obscure this choice out of malice. I hope that conservatives will not do the same out of cowardice.

Barack Obama is a terrorist

The steadfast William Kristol talks to Governor Extraordinaire Palin:

Palin also made clear that she was eager for the McCain-Palin campaign to be more aggressive in helping the American people understand “who the real Barack Obama is.” Part of who Obama is, she said, has to do with his past associations, such as with the former bomber Bill Ayers. Palin had raised the topic of Ayers Saturday on the campaign trail, and she maintained to me that Obama, who’s minimized his relationship with Ayers, “hasn’t been wholly truthful” about this.

I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers — and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?

She didn’t hesitate: “To tell you the truth, Bill, I don’t know why that association isn’t discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that — with, I don’t know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn’t get up and leave — to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up.”

I guess so. And I guess we’ll soon know McCain’s call on whether he wants to bring Wright up — perhaps at his debate with Obama Tuesday night.

I asked at the end of our conversation whether Palin, fresh off her own debate, had any advice for McCain. “I’m going to tell him the same thing he told me. I talked to him just a few minutes before I walked out there on stage. And he just said: ‘Have fun. Be yourself, and have fun.’ And Senator McCain can do the same.” She paused, and I was about to thank her for the interview, but she had one more thing to say. “Only maybe I’d add just a couple more words, and that would be: ‘Take the gloves off.’ ”

To this, let me add only: let the gloves come all the way off. There is no time for half-measures, and no time for the mewling complaints of "dirty politics", and the attendant cries of "racism", which will no doubt come from the soft and colicky liberal elites. What does that amount to? Nothing, inconsequence. The purpose of politics is to put your case, fully and forthrightly, to the American people. And your case is: Barack Obama, by long and intimate association with terrorists, has revealed himself to be a terrorist.

Take a moment. Now, consider this logically: what is the difference - what difference can one honestly admit - between al Qaeda and the Taliban government which supported and protected it? Mullah Omar did not organize the attacks on the United States and her interests - it was al Qaeda, emboldened by the softness of the Clinton regime, who did. And yet, in that too-brief era of clarity which grimly dawned on September 11th, 2001, our nation and our hearts rallied to this:

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

This was a challenge made to the nations of the world, but - as we have known from at least the time of Plato's Republic - the struggles and obligations of nations are our individual struggles and obligations writ large. Either YOU are with us, or YOU are with the terrorists.

"Professor" Ayers is an admitted and unashamed terrorist; Barack Obama has stood publicly, and certainly continues to stand in secret, with him; there can be no distinction between Ayers and Obama.

Barack Obama IS a terrorist.

"Reverend" Wright is an admitted and unashamed anti-American Mullah (I mean "pastor", of course), Barack Obama has stood publicly, and certainly continues to stand in secret, with him; there can be no distinction between Wright and Obama.

Barack Obama IS a terrorist.

I believe I have labored this point enough. Those who wish to prove the equivalence between the candidate which the Democrat party feels best represents their interests and values, and the other avowed enemies of our nation with whom we are openly at war, may do so as a take-home assignment. But that proof is just as trivial, if you believe truly and reason clearly. Let us again remember the words which rallied us in the grim dawn:

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.

And, perhaps, the words of another who rallied us against darkness and lies:

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.

If you believe we are in the midst of a struggle for Western Civilization against its enemies, you must act accordingly. (If you do not believe this, I confess you have left me at a loss for words.) In a world where evil exists, there can be no compromise, no meeting halfway, and no high-minded refusal to choose. Choose the Truth, and speak it plainly.